[0:21] , you

[1:30] and I and

[1:30] .

[1:30] >> All right.

[1:37] Good morning everyone.

[1:38] I will now call the city

[1:38] council meeting of Tuesday JULY

[1:39] 7th, 2026 to order the clerk

[1:43] please call the roll.

[1:44] Thank you.

[1:44] Council PRESIDENT Council

[1:45] member Campbell Council member

[1:49] Whitburn here Council Member

[1:50] Foster here Council Member Von

[1:50] Wilpert Council PRESIDENT Pro

[1:56] Tem Lee Council Member Campos

[1:57] here Council Member Moreno

[1:57] Present Council Member Eli

[2:01] Rivera and Council PRESIDENT

[2:02] LaCava present Also taking

[2:03] the meeting our Chief Deputy

[2:06] City Attorney Cory New for

[2:07] independent budget analyst

[2:08] Charles Monica and myself for

[2:08] City clerk Diana Fuentes Thank

[2:12] you Council PRESIDENT All right

[2:13] thank you MADAM City Clerk

[2:13] acquirements now present we

[2:14] will begin this morning with

[2:17] the land acknowledgment and

[2:17] the Pledge of Allegiance led by

[2:23] council member Campbell please

[2:29] stand if you're able.

[2:30] We respectfully acknowledge

[2:30] that the nation are

[2:35] the original inhabitants of

[2:36] the Unceded land now known as

[2:36] San Diego.

[2:41] Despite enduring the horrors of

[2:42] genocide and colonization,

[2:43] the community spirit remains

[2:43] unbroken.

[2:47] We honor the resilience of

[2:48] their ancestors who fought to

[2:48] protect their culture and land

[2:53] And today they carry their

[2:54] legacy forward ensuring that

[2:55] their traditions continue to

[2:59] thrive in gratitude and

[2:59] strength.

[3:00] We stand with the culmination

[3:05] connected to our past and

[3:06] committed to a thriving future.

[3:06] Please raise the flag and put

[3:10] your right hand over your

[3:10] heart.

[3:11] >> I pledge allegiance to

[3:16] the flag of the United States

[3:16] of America and to a republic

[3:17] for which it stands one nation

[3:21] under GOD, indivisible with

[3:26] liberty and justice for all.

[3:27] >> All right.

[3:33] So the clerk please go over how

[3:34] the public can offer their

[3:34] testimony.

[3:34] >> Thank you.

[3:35] Council PRESIDENT I'd like to

[3:36] highlight the slide on

[3:38] the screen that reviews how

[3:39] the public can offer their

[3:40] public testimony during today's

[3:40] meeting.

[3:41] Please note the time

[3:41] allocations for proclamations

[3:44] and consent items for meeting

[3:44] management purposes The order

[3:45] can be found at the agenda

[3:50] Summary online or at the table

[3:50] in the back of the room.

[3:51] If you are in person please

[3:52] complete the speakers live Look

[3:54] at the entrance of chambers and

[3:55] bring it to the front of

[3:55] the room.

[3:56] There have been no organized

[4:00] presentations submitted for

[4:00] this morning session and

[4:01] council ambassadors are

[4:02] available near the entrance of

[4:05] chambers and can assist with

[4:06] questions and speakers lips No

[4:07] further in-person testimony

[4:10] will be taken once the Council

[4:11] begins virtual testimony.

[4:12] Thank you, Council PRESIDENT

[4:12] All right.

[4:12] Thank you.

[4:16] City Clerk And as a reminder

[4:17] this is actually day two of our

[4:21] implementation of new public

[4:22] comment rules under state Bill

[4:22] 707 yesterday seem to have gone

[4:27] very well.

[4:27] There seems to be all

[4:28] indications that they will go

[4:29] well as well And as a friendly

[4:32] reminder when you're speaking

[4:33] to a docket item please focus

[4:33] your comments on that item not

[4:37] an agenda Public comment is

[4:38] your opportunity to speak more

[4:39] broadly about anything under

[4:42] the city of San Diego Purview.

[4:43] So with that we will now

[4:44] dispense with the approval of

[4:49] the proclamation item.

[4:50] >> Please proceed with public

[4:50] comment.

[4:50] Thank you.

[4:51] Council PRESIDENT.

[4:52] The public comment period for

[4:54] proclamation items is now open

[4:54] .

[4:54] Each speaker will have one

[4:55] minute per item per person.

[4:58] If you'd like to speak on three

[4:58] or more items there's only one

[4:59] item on the agenda You would

[5:00] have a maximum of three

[5:00] minutes.

[5:03] Those participating virtually

[5:03] that are part please be sure to

[5:08] submit to raise your hand now

[5:08] if you were wanting to speak on

[5:09] proclamations we did not

[5:10] receive any comments.

[5:14] Floyd Johnson If you can please

[5:15] come forward after that will be

[5:15] allegedly order You'll be

[5:18] speaking on item s5a1ta Turner

[5:42] Day Floyd Well I'm here on

[5:48] behalf of c Attorney.

[5:48] She's setting out some

[5:49] acknowledgments today and I

[5:53] just want to say that I'm very

[5:53] happy to be a part of her life

[5:54] and have her be a part of mine.

[5:58] I've known her for years when I

[5:58] first worked for the city when

[5:59] i was fresh out of high school

[6:02] she was my supervisor very

[6:07] energetic, very chatty, tactful

[6:07] .

[6:08] You know, she has a lot of

[6:08] gumption, you know, very

[6:09] encouraging.

[6:13] You know, she kind of like took

[6:13] me under her wing and like

[6:14] treated me like a little

[6:17] brother.

[6:18] So I'm just happy to be here.

[6:19] On behalf of her accepting her

[6:22] award which she earned very,

[6:22] very much.

[6:27] And that's all I got to say.

[6:28] >> Have a good day.

[6:28] Thank you.

[6:29] Allegedly I don't If you can

[6:39] please come forward actually

[6:40] thought it said Tina Turner

[6:42] first when I realized she's not

[6:48] here anymore.

[6:48] >> My problem is when you guys

[6:49] do proclamations and I'm always

[6:52] going to say this is that it's

[6:52] just sad that there's things

[6:53] that just get brushed under

[6:54] the rug that we don't talk

[6:57] about like different murders

[6:58] and rapes that are happening at

[7:02] the parks and recreations And

[7:03] you know we can appreciate

[7:07] these people but then it's like

[7:08] if we don't acknowledge

[7:08] the things that are taking

[7:12] place there at different parks

[7:13] throughout the city and you

[7:17] guys, you know, don't consent

[7:18] great on making them safer and

[7:19] putting lights and things like

[7:21] that that I feel like you know,

[7:22] we need to acknowledge those

[7:27] things and instead of, you

[7:27] know, pretending like they

[7:28] don't happen because we're you

[7:31] know, supporting somebody which

[7:32] is great But at the same time I

[7:36] just feel like like with Tent

[7:37] City, you know, all these

[7:37] things get brushed under

[7:40] the rug and it's very

[7:41] disturbing to me That does

[7:42] include proclamations here in

[7:46] council chambers going to those

[7:47] participating remotely starting

[7:47] with Francine Maxwell If you

[7:50] can please unmute Francine

[7:51] Maxwell Southeastern San Diego

[7:56] well deserved proclamation for

[8:00] City where she has exemplified

[8:00] black excellence working for

[8:01] the city of San Diego No matter

[8:05] how much she went to leadership

[8:06] and shared what was happening

[8:11] especially under the Chief Race

[8:11] Inequity office when we had it

[8:15] now with under the idea with

[8:15] the executive director none of

[8:16] the things that Tia brought

[8:19] forward has changed over

[8:20] the years.

[8:20] But she persevered.

[8:24] She continue to teach Her

[8:25] programing was second to none.

[8:29] This is such a great day for

[8:29] her to receive a proclamation

[8:30] in the city of San Diego.

[8:33] The eight largest city because

[8:38] of what she had to endure in

[8:39] the eighth largest city working

[8:39] with parking Rick and she was

[8:42] blessed to get a transfer and

[8:43] she went and finished what she

[8:43] needed to do.

[8:47] We are excited for her next

[8:48] chapter and it's been a

[8:52] privilege to watch and learn

[8:53] what things could be in this

[8:53] city.

[8:53] Thank you.

[8:54] Thank you.

[8:55] Next is Peggy Walker.

[9:00] >> If you can please unmute I'm

[9:01] sorry I didn't mean to raise my

[9:04] hand.

[9:05] >> Blair Beckman If you can

[9:10] please unmute by Blair Beckman.

[9:10] When I saw this proclamation it

[9:14] seemed kind of interesting.

[9:15] i was hoping someone like

[9:16] Francine Maxwell would approve

[9:18] public comment and she has now

[9:19] have a history and

[9:20] understanding of this person

[9:24] and it sounds like she's done

[9:25] good work a lot of good work

[9:25] over the years.

[9:26] So many years So

[9:29] congratulations to her work in

[9:29] life and what she'll be doing

[9:30] next.

[9:33] Thank you.

[9:34] >> Thank you.

[9:34] That concludes public comment

[9:35] on the proclamation items.

[9:35] All right.

[9:36] Thank you.

[9:38] City Clerk.

[9:38] And with that I'll turn over to

[9:39] council members for questions.

[9:43] Comments and entertain a motion

[9:44] and we'll start with Council

[9:48] member Foster Yes, Thank you

[9:52] Council PRESIDENT And I would

[9:53] like to provide comments for

[9:58] item as I'm sorry for item 32

[9:58] your Turner Day today I'm proud

[10:02] to join the mayor in

[10:03] recognizing Ted Turner for more

[10:06] than 38 years of dedicated

[10:07] service to the city of San

[10:08] Diego throughout her career to

[10:12] exemplify public service by

[10:13] showing up for residents

[10:13] building relationships and

[10:17] creating programs that brought

[10:18] families and communities

[10:19] together through parks and

[10:22] recreation to serve communities

[10:23] across every single council

[10:23] district and worked at

[10:26] recreation recreation centers

[10:27] throughout San Diego including

[10:31] Paradise Hills Skyline Hills,

[10:32] Martin Luther King Jr, Linda

[10:36] Vista, Scripps Ranch, Miramar

[10:37] Isa, La Hoya, Tierra Santa and

[10:41] many others to help bring

[10:42] meaningful programs and events

[10:45] to life including the first

[10:45] annual Juneteenth Festival at

[10:48] Skyline Hills Recreation Center

[10:49] the first Cackle Barry Festival

[10:50] nighttime egg hunt at Tears

[10:53] down a recreation center in

[10:54] summer meal programing for

[10:54] children and families.

[10:58] She also stepped up to critical

[10:59] moments including helping set

[10:59] up Scripps Ranch Recreation

[11:00] Center to support fema

[11:03] operations during the Cedar

[11:04] Fire some years ago.

[11:09] Tia's impact can be seen in

[11:09] the programs she helped lead

[11:10] and the community partnership

[11:10] she built among city

[11:13] departments, schools, community

[11:14] organizations, public officials

[11:18] and neighborhood stakeholders.

[11:19] While her service reached

[11:19] across San Diego, Tia has

[11:23] always remained rooted in

[11:24] Council District four as a

[11:24] lifelong resident and Lincoln

[11:28] Park homeowner a proud Lincoln

[11:28] High School graduate and

[11:32] the parent of two Lincoln

[11:32] graduates.

[11:33] Tia your legacy will live in

[11:37] the lasting difference you have

[11:37] made in the lives of San Diego

[11:41] residents especially

[11:42] the families and communities of

[11:43] District four.

[11:46] Thank you for all you have done

[11:47] for our community and I wish

[11:51] you the very best in retirement

[11:52] .

[11:52] >> Three If you would like to

[12:10] say a few words please.

[12:15] Well well first given that I

[12:20] could go and to you because you

[12:20] guys help I run Amazing city I

[12:24] in my heart is for I don't I

[12:25] don't know what to say I don't

[12:26] have the words to express how I

[12:30] feel I'm just grateful that I

[12:35] received a job with the city

[12:38] and I got to work 38 years and

[12:42] I'm thankful for everything and

[12:45] I don't have any words.

[12:46] >> I'm just grateful.

[12:55] Thank you so to you thank you

[12:56] for those words.

[13:00] >> And again just on behalf of

[13:01] District four, just thank you

[13:02] for everything that you have

[13:06] done for our community.

[13:06] I know as you retire you will

[13:07] not be going anywhere.

[13:10] We will see you actively

[13:11] throughout the district and

[13:11] the community.

[13:12] So thank you for everything

[13:15] that you have done And so with

[13:16] that council PRESIDENT I move

[13:20] our proclamations or

[13:25] proclamation sorry for we have

[13:25] a motion by Councilmember

[13:26] Foster to move the proclamation

[13:27] and will go to council member

[13:30] Ella Oh actually for the record

[13:33] that was item s501 but we have

[13:39] a motion by council member

[13:40] Foster to move as 5 or 1 and we

[13:41] will go next to council member

[13:43] Ella Rivera Thank you Council

[13:46] PRESIDENT I wanted to Second

[13:47] Councilmember Foster's motion

[13:51] and express my gratitude as

[13:52] well to MS. Turner for her

[13:52] service to the City

[13:56] Councilmember Foster said it

[14:00] very, very well but I just one

[14:01] wanted to say thank you for

[14:01] your service to the Mid-City

[14:02] Community City Heights Rec

[14:05] Center, Mid-City Gym and

[14:09] Mid-City Police Station and

[14:10] then you know I was listening

[14:15] to your comments here and you

[14:16] said you got to have a job for

[14:16] 38 years.

[14:20] You earned the job and you kept

[14:21] the job because you were doing

[14:24] incredible work and

[14:25] the gratitude that you

[14:25] expressed here just know that

[14:29] it's it's right back at you.

[14:30] 38 years is an incredible

[14:30] amount of time to dedicate to

[14:34] the city And I was thinking

[14:35] about some of the programs that

[14:38] were named that you helped

[14:39] support and those are you

[14:44] helped create lifelong memories

[14:44] for folks.

[14:45] And when our city staff pours

[14:48] love and our parks and rec

[14:49] centers it has such an

[14:53] incredible impact on

[14:53] communities.

[14:54] I know you know that But

[14:54] the young people who grow up

[14:58] there and will always remember

[14:58] fondly the experiences they had

[15:02] the seniors who felt by and by

[15:03] and connection there.

[15:03] It's just really, really

[15:07] important work And so thank you

[15:08] and just know that you are

[15:09] grateful and we are grateful

[15:13] for your service.

[15:13] >> Thank you.

[15:13] All right.

[15:14] Thank you, Council members.

[15:18] So again, we have a motion by

[15:19] Councilmember Foster and

[15:19] the second by council member

[15:20] Eli Rivera to move

[15:20] the proclamation item.

[15:23] We'll go next to council member

[15:23] Autumn Walbert.

[15:24] Thank you very much.

[15:27] And I would also want to thank

[15:27] you for your service to our

[15:28] community.

[15:28] I mean the Parks and Rec

[15:32] Department provided joy to our

[15:33] city which is such a huge part

[15:33] of a city.

[15:34] You know we can build roads, we

[15:36] can have public safety but if

[15:37] you can't provide community

[15:37] it's not a city.

[15:41] And so thank you for all you've

[15:41] done.

[15:42] I really appreciate you.

[15:43] And on behalf of the residents

[15:46] subscription and in particular

[15:46] you know my family went through

[15:47] the Cedar Fire and I know how

[15:51] hard you worked to keep the rec

[15:52] center to be a place of refuge,

[15:53] be a place where the community

[15:55] could get information.

[15:56] You know, I've been told many,

[15:56] many stories about people

[16:00] sitting down and being told to

[16:01] call their home voicemails to

[16:02] see if it picked up and if it

[16:05] didn't pick up that meant their

[16:06] house had burned.

[16:07] So I just just know that we so

[16:10] appreciate the over arching

[16:11] dedication you had to our

[16:11] community.

[16:12] Congratulations on your

[16:12] retirement.

[16:15] Thank you for your service on

[16:15] the Municipal Employees

[16:16] Association Board as well.

[16:17] You're not only helped our

[16:17] city, you've helped other

[16:20] people And so thank you for

[16:21] everything and congratulations

[16:21] on your retirement.

[16:25] Don't be a stranger any time.

[16:25] >> Thank you.

[16:26] All right.

[16:26] And Councilmember Yvonne

[16:29] Wolpert not see anybody else in

[16:29] the lights.

[16:30] I'll add my thanks.

[16:33] Thank you for taking a job with

[16:33] the city.

[16:34] Thank you for believing in

[16:35] the city and giving everything

[16:38] that is what a public servant

[16:39] is all about.

[16:42] So we are very blessed to have

[16:43] had you and this is a small

[16:48] token of our opportunity to say

[16:48] thank you with this

[16:49] proclamation And that's that's

[16:50] what we're talking about this

[16:50] morning.

[16:53] So thank you and wish you

[16:54] the very best on your

[16:54] retirement.

[16:55] So with that again we have a

[16:58] motion by Council member Foster

[16:58] a second by council member Eli

[16:59] Rivera.

[17:03] Please call the vote As far as

[17:04] voting system please cast your

[17:07] vote And that passes

[17:08] unanimously 9 to 0.

[17:09] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All

[17:09] right.

[17:12] Thank you.

[17:13] With that we will now pause for

[17:13] a photo.

[17:15] This is the time to come on up

[19:25] into the pit and

[20:00] all right with that, we will

[20:04] now proceed with the approval

[20:05] of the consent item.

[20:06] So first, are there any

[20:06] requests to pull an item by

[20:09] the council Not seen any

[20:09] request Clerk Please proceed

[20:10] with public comment on

[20:14] the consent item.

[20:14] Thank you.

[20:15] Council PRESIDENT Please.

[20:15] Now each speaker will have one

[20:19] minute per item per person if

[20:19] you would like to speak on

[20:20] three or more items you'll have

[20:21] a maximum of three minutes.

[20:23] Those participating virtually

[20:24] Please be sure to raise your

[20:25] hand at this time if you would

[20:28] like to be in the virtual queue

[20:28] for consent items.

[20:29] We did receive one comment in

[20:34] opposition to item 100 v r e

[20:34] comment form which have been

[20:37] distributed to the Council also

[20:38] let me note for the record

[20:39] the potential re appointments

[20:40] that are on the agenda this

[20:40] morning.

[20:43] Item 103 is the potential

[20:43] reappointment of Antoinette

[20:47] Alioto, Gwen Marie Hillery,

[20:48] Jacqueline Jackson and William

[20:48] Pittman to the Seniors Affairs

[20:53] Advisory Board of Maximillian

[20:53] Schmidt And allegedly Audrey

[20:56] can please come forward to

[20:57] the other reserved seats.

[20:58] Maximilian you will be speaking

[21:01] on items 50 5152 and 104 You'll

[21:01] have three minutes.

[21:05] Please proceed when ready When

[21:15] you get up to the microphone.

[21:15] Hi.

[21:19] I've got some I've got some big

[21:20] ideas that I thought of that I

[21:24] think many people support and

[21:25] that I'm really excited to

[21:29] share as for cannabis delivery

[21:33] services item 50 I thought that

[21:37] we could all loosen cannabis

[21:38] zoning and restrictions and we

[21:42] could put a dispensary downtown

[21:48] maybe by like Petco Park or in

[21:48] the East Village or in Little

[21:49] Italy somewhere and have

[21:52] downtown full of cannabis

[21:53] Dispensary is kind of like Los

[21:54] Angeles downtown Los Angeles or

[21:58] New York City.

[21:58] And then I think that would be

[21:59] cool because the only cannabis

[22:02] shops we have are in Middletown

[22:03] and then one past Barrio Logan.

[22:07] So that's kind of I don't know

[22:07] what other cities on the West

[22:08] Coast don't even have a

[22:12] cannabis dispensary downtown.

[22:12] >> It's just kind of

[22:13] inconvenient And I have a

[22:14] really exciting idea for

[22:17] electric Bicycle safety

[22:17] regulations is a total which I

[22:22] think many people in city

[22:22] council maybe would support And

[22:26] buzz is considered radical but

[22:26] it's an exciting idea.

[22:27] A total citywide ban on

[22:31] electric bicycles to promote

[22:32] exercise And because an average

[22:36] bicycle can go 10 or 15mph that

[22:37] should be enough.

[22:38] And I say that because I'm a

[22:41] skateboarder and I have a story

[22:42] to tell This is going to sound

[22:46] crazy but I will never look at

[22:47] an e-bike the same because I

[22:48] was on a bike trail on this is

[22:51] actually non San Diego in Los

[22:51] Angeles but I was on my

[22:52] skateboard and I was

[22:55] skateboarding on the bike trail

[22:55] and there is the little white

[22:56] line that's on the bike trail

[23:00] and a bike went by me at like

[23:05] 35mph like inches away from me

[23:06] and my life flashed before my

[23:07] eyes And I think it was

[23:10] the closest experience I have

[23:11] had to death in my life and it

[23:12] was extremely dangerous.

[23:15] So yeah, total citywide ban on

[23:15] electric bicycles Just only can

[23:19] I say that as a skateboarder

[23:20] who rides a non-electric

[23:21] skateboard just a normal

[23:25] skateboard I think skateboard

[23:25] should be allowed I think

[23:26] normal bicycle should be

[23:29] allowed and then banned all

[23:30] electric everything electric

[23:33] and then just to finish up I

[23:39] just wanted to say as for

[23:39] the state of emergency for

[23:43] Taiwan and Mexico, I think we

[23:48] could have the state of

[23:48] emergencies for much more

[23:53] serious things like a Freemason

[23:53] Zeus.

[23:54] That song would be more

[23:57] appropriate And this is kind of

[23:58] a strange form of corruption

[23:59] that many people don't like to

[24:02] talk about but it's medical

[24:02] fraud and where people's

[24:07] Medicaid and Medi-Cal gets

[24:11] charged to get unnecessary

[24:12] hospital procedures and even

[24:12] ambulance procedures in

[24:16] the form of mobile crisis that

[24:17] they don't need because of you

[24:18] For that concluding comment

[24:21] allegedly addressed you'll be

[24:25] speaking on 5051 50 to 100 1 or

[24:26] 2 104 and s 500 You'll have

[24:26] three minutes.

[24:29] Please proceed.

[24:30] Guys might not like people but

[24:34] Max was you know right on that.

[24:35] I mean electric bikes don't

[24:35] promote health.

[24:39] I mean it actually keeps you

[24:40] from riding a bike.

[24:40] I mean you're not pedaling like

[24:43] my dad was all excited to ride

[24:44] 20 miles and it's like your

[24:48] bike did it whenever.

[24:48] Yes.

[24:49] So this cannabis stuff it's so

[24:53] interesting that you guys use

[24:54] the war on drugs as a reason to

[24:54] rob people from selling drugs

[24:58] or while they're selling them

[24:59] and then using that money You

[24:59] know, the billions of dollars

[25:03] that the governments taken And

[25:03] people still think it's a

[25:07] profitable business All you do

[25:08] is want to regulate it.

[25:08] It's crazy.

[25:09] It's like people can't come in

[25:13] here and you know, deliver this

[25:13] If we don't you know, make them

[25:14] get a permit.

[25:17] I mean who's going to know that

[25:17] anyway?

[25:18] You're just going to like But

[25:19] it's good because you have

[25:19] the enforcement that's that's

[25:22] where you guys come into And

[25:23] this electric bike stuff really

[25:27] it's thing is that you're going

[25:28] to make it so nobody can ride a

[25:28] bike until they have insurance

[25:29] get it registered just like a

[25:32] car get them out of their cars

[25:33] and then put them in on a bike

[25:36] and then treat it like a car.

[25:37] And he was also right about

[25:38] medical billing and things like

[25:41] that or just you know, fraud

[25:42] that happens in addition to

[25:45] the fall ambulance sexual

[25:45] assaults where women are you

[25:46] know, get to the hospital naked

[25:51] and having stuff injected into

[25:51] their necks.

[25:52] But we don't need to worry

[25:52] about that.

[25:55] That's just another business.

[25:56] And then I just find it

[25:56] interesting when it's like

[26:00] urban areas security initiative

[26:00] like we had a border invasion

[26:05] and we have all these things

[26:05] like I just don't think you

[26:06] guys can be trusted with that

[26:07] but it's another way to make

[26:09] money So good.

[26:09] Let's see.

[26:10] Yes And the homeless housing

[26:14] assistance and Prevention grant

[26:15] is your guys's way of

[26:18] preventing homelessness

[26:19] murdering people in Tent City

[26:24] wondering because people are

[26:24] being murdered, they're

[26:29] strangled black men are being

[26:30] strangled there.

[26:30] But it's cool.

[26:31] It's another business You can

[26:34] just get more money, you know

[26:34] what I mean?

[26:35] And then the t want to River

[26:38] Valley So the lady that came

[26:39] yesterday it's interesting

[26:39] she's talking about these leach

[26:43] fields of sewage that are

[26:43] potentially coming.

[26:44] I'm wondering how that's any

[26:45] better than it just going right

[26:48] where it is.

[26:49] Who knows And at least I mean

[26:49] it's going to come back in

[26:53] the form of pure water.

[26:53] Right?

[26:54] It might taste different a

[26:55] little bit spicy, who knows?

[26:57] And then just any surveillance

[26:57] that you guys need.

[26:58] I just you know, we can't even

[26:59] use the lpr, right?

[27:02] We chase cars to the mall when

[27:03] they're out shooting people at

[27:03] a mosque.

[27:07] But you know, it's good.

[27:08] Let's get more of them right

[27:11] and pay the police more for

[27:12] that.

[27:12] >> So I don't know.

[27:13] Just good job you guys doing

[27:16] good business racketeering and

[27:17] making sure that people are

[27:18] being murdered and don't care.

[27:20] But it's cool what happens in

[27:20] your parks.

[27:25] >> Homer Owl good job.

[27:26] That concludes public comment

[27:27] for consent hearing Council

[27:27] chamber is going to those

[27:30] participating online.

[27:31] Becky Rapp If you can please

[27:32] unmute This is for the consent

[27:35] agenda we currently have eight

[27:36] speakers in the queue.

[27:37] Figure applicant on for you.

[27:39] Yeah there you go.

[27:40] >> Good morning.

[27:41] My name is Becky Rapp and I'd

[27:43] like to speak to item number

[27:43] 50.

[27:44] I support strengthening

[27:45] enforcement against illegal

[27:48] marijuana delivery operations

[27:49] especially when out of town

[27:50] businesses are delivering into

[27:53] San Diego without complying

[27:54] with our local rules.

[27:54] Businesses that profit from

[27:58] the San Diego market should be

[27:59] held to the same standards as

[28:00] those that have invested in

[28:03] permits and comply with our

[28:04] regulations.

[28:04] Strong penalties are

[28:08] appropriate when operators

[28:09] choose to ignore those

[28:09] requirements.

[28:10] However, I encourage

[28:14] the council to go a step

[28:14] further.

[28:15] The same enforcement should

[28:16] apply to any business operating

[28:18] within San Diego that is

[28:19] selling illegal marijuana

[28:19] products not just delivery

[28:20] services.

[28:23] Whether the violation comes

[28:24] from and from outside the city

[28:28] or from a storefront or other

[28:29] business such as a smoke or

[28:29] vape shop inside our city

[28:32] limits, the harm is the same.

[28:33] It reduces consumer protections

[28:37] and weakens respect for

[28:37] the law.

[28:38] If we're going to create strong

[28:42] penalties and enforcement tools

[28:42] today then then they should be

[28:46] applied consistently to all

[28:47] illegal activity.

[28:47] >> Your time has concluded.

[28:51] Francine Maxwell If you can

[28:52] please I'm you and let me know

[28:53] which item or items you wish to

[28:53] speak to.

[28:55] >> 51 103.

[28:56] >> You have two minutes.

[28:57] Please proceed.

[29:00] Francine Maxwell Southeastern

[29:01] San Diego So excited for

[29:04] the bike safety ab 2 to 3 for

[29:08] really encouraged I would also

[29:09] like to make sure that if

[29:09] someone is throwing a free

[29:14] helmet giveaway that you look

[29:15] at our Encanto see our g two

[29:16] host we have a lot of children

[29:19] there Grandparent purchased but

[29:20] did not purchase a helmet and

[29:23] we want everyone safe.

[29:24] We want to change those numbers

[29:25] absolutely at Rabies Children's

[29:29] Hospital for the appointment I

[29:29] continue to stay excited for

[29:33] those individuals that serve on

[29:34] our boards and commissions

[29:34] which consistently continue to

[29:38] help our city of San Diego move

[29:39] and make decisions.

[29:43] I'm hoping that the diocese

[29:43] will consider every council

[29:44] office has a newsletter

[29:49] the same way We're asking you

[29:49] to maybe have a clerk's corner

[29:53] in your newsletter to educate

[29:53] the community as a whole on

[29:54] things that they can access in

[29:57] the clerk's office or even

[29:58] learn what is happening.

[29:59] We need to know what's going on

[30:02] in the boards and commission So

[30:03] maybe every quarter the city

[30:04] council can take out a picture

[30:07] of you handing out a resolution

[30:08] and put in what is happening

[30:09] with the boards and commissions

[30:13] that you've assigned to

[30:13] community members because

[30:14] the information and the things

[30:17] that they work on are just so

[30:17] important But it's not getting

[30:21] out to the entire community

[30:22] that they represent Or maybe

[30:23] there could be a conversation

[30:27] about boards and commissions

[30:27] newsletter that can be placed

[30:31] in all our libraries and all

[30:32] our colleagues because a lot of

[30:32] community members are still wi

[30:35] fi deficient.

[30:36] Again appreciative of

[30:37] the appointments and very

[30:41] appreciative of ab 2234.

[30:42] >> Thank you for allowing me to

[30:42] speak.

[30:42] Thank you.

[30:46] Next is 8700 If you can please

[30:47] unmute and let me know which

[30:48] item or items you wish to speak

[30:52] to.

[30:53] All of them except for 15.

[30:54] You'll have three minutes.

[31:01] Please proceed Joy Send to 51

[31:01] Yes to the Electric Bicycle

[31:06] Safety Regulation for under 12

[31:07] year old children Yes to

[31:10] guiding our children in

[31:11] the ways of safety I support

[31:16] tough love 52 No to

[31:20] the contract with many

[31:21] enterprises for emergency

[31:25] ambulance transport, billing

[31:25] and collection services until I

[31:30] know for certain they have a

[31:31] program to help low income

[31:35] people to what can be a very

[31:35] challenging time.

[31:36] I will not support this

[31:40] contract.

[31:40] Thank you.

[31:44] 100 Yes two grants I love

[31:45] grants.

[31:45] This is a large amount.

[31:50] I wasn't clear how the funds

[31:50] will be distributed, monitored

[31:51] and so forth.

[31:55] These oversee these precious

[32:00] funds stringently Thank you.

[32:04] 102a big yes to round six of

[32:04] half.

[32:08] I love Grant funds Blessings

[32:09] and thank you.

[32:13] Governor Newsom loves to you

[32:14] and your family.

[32:18] The magic word is prevention.

[32:18] Thank you.

[32:22] On 104 this is the raw sewage

[32:23] situation.

[32:27] PRESIDENT Harry Truman had a

[32:32] sign in the Oval Office It said

[32:32] the buck stops here in

[32:33] the United States.

[32:37] Mexico sewage pollution crisis

[32:37] Where does the buck stop?

[32:43] Thank you and been s500 Yes to

[32:46] can't kick under the trust

[32:47] ordinance I love the trust

[32:51] ordinance Thank you San Diego

[32:51] swat association for

[32:55] the donation of robotic

[32:56] platform that has situational

[33:01] awareness that would is so

[33:02] powerful We all know everything

[33:02] starts with awareness

[33:06] situational awareness and this

[33:07] protects our very very human

[33:11] police.

[33:11] Thank you for listening.

[33:12] It's really been a great start

[33:16] to the day to all Thank you.

[33:16] >> Next is Peggy Walker.

[33:20] If you can please unmute

[33:21] The five minute timer also

[33:24] concluded there were eight

[33:25] speakers in the queue.

[33:25] No additional speakers will be

[33:26] taken.

[33:29] Thank you.

[33:30] Important support item 50

[33:34] registration fees are good but

[33:35] the fees seem low and it's not

[33:39] clear if there's a means for

[33:40] substantiating the seller's

[33:44] other city license.

[33:45] I think we need to recognize

[33:45] that wherever marijuana is

[33:49] permitted there will always be

[33:49] an illegal market undercutting

[33:50] prices.

[33:54] That's underscored by the fact

[33:55] that 40% of sales in our county

[33:59] currently are illegal.

[33:59] Illegal deliveries represent

[34:00] the bulk of those sales and

[34:04] black market products are

[34:05] selling at 40 to 50% of

[34:09] permitted sales prices that all

[34:10] means that ongoing enforcement

[34:10] will be crucial but challenging

[34:14] for the success of this

[34:15] especially when unlicensed

[34:16] operators have a history of

[34:20] popping up, shutting down and

[34:21] opening again.

[34:25] This breeds public confusion

[34:25] and those operators are often

[34:26] careful about fines.

[34:26] Thank you.

[34:31] And that let put this Thank you

[34:31] Madison If you can please

[34:35] unmute let me know which item

[34:36] or items you wish to speak to.

[34:39] I am speaking to item 50 and I

[34:40] appreciate the effort in item

[34:44] 50 to strengthen enforcement

[34:45] against illegal cannabis

[34:45] delivery operations.

[34:46] Unauthorized delivery

[34:46] businesses should not be

[34:49] allowed to operate outside

[34:50] the rules while neighborhoods

[34:50] bear the impacts At the same

[34:55] time I want to express concern

[34:55] about the portion of this item

[34:56] that creates a new cannabis

[34:59] delivery business permit for

[35:00] operators delivering into San

[35:00] Diego from other jurisdictions.

[35:05] The proposed registration fees

[35:05] appear very low and

[35:06] the ordinance does not appear

[35:06] to require meaningful

[35:09] verification of the originating

[35:10] city's authorization before

[35:11] allowing deliveries here I

[35:11] believe we should be moving

[35:15] towards stronger oversight and

[35:16] fewer marijuana businesses in

[35:17] our communities not creating

[35:20] pathways that could make

[35:21] expansion easier.

[35:21] High potency marijuana products

[35:26] are already heavily marketed

[35:27] and increasingly normalized to

[35:27] young people.

[35:28] I ask the Council to ensure

[35:31] that any delivery permitting

[35:32] system includes robust

[35:32] verification and safeguards

[35:37] that do not unintentionally

[35:37] increase marijuana business

[35:38] activity in San Diego.

[35:38] >> Thank you.

[35:39] Thank you.

[35:42] Security strain if you can

[35:43] please and let me know which

[35:44] item or items you wish to speak

[35:47] to.

[35:48] >> Julia Academy for you.

[35:48] There you go.

[35:52] Yes.

[35:53] Good morning, City Council.

[35:57] I came to speak on item 50 on

[35:57] consent.

[35:58] I support City Council person

[36:02] Carpio in his efforts to have

[36:03] some idea of who it is that's

[36:04] wandering around in our city

[36:08] delivering pot when it doesn't

[36:09] come from our own retail

[36:09] storefront.

[36:13] As we know the ordinance is

[36:13] three pronged.

[36:14] Most importantly it's to

[36:15] increase the penalties at least

[36:18] from my point of view regarding

[36:19] noncompliance.

[36:19] And second, it will give others

[36:24] the right to sue against this

[36:24] illegal cannabis activity

[36:25] occurring in our city.

[36:30] Three Probably the one that's a

[36:30] little problematic to me is

[36:35] what this permitting process

[36:36] might look for out of towners

[36:36] and out of town as they will

[36:37] be.

[36:37] And we have watched that

[36:41] process in Oceanside and no one

[36:42] ever registered.

[36:42] So reason to be concerned in

[36:47] San Diego we might see the same

[36:47] thing.

[36:48] They figured out how to do it

[36:48] illegally.

[36:52] They'll just continue that

[36:53] enforcement and those fines and

[36:53] penalties are going to be a of

[36:54] importance.

[36:57] Thank you.

[36:58] >> Thank you Terry and Skelly,

[37:03] if you can please unmute dance.

[37:09] Good morning San Diego City

[37:09] Council.

[37:10] My name is Terrence Kelly.

[37:13] I came to support consent item

[37:14] 15 regarding higher penalties

[37:15] for illegal pot deliveries into

[37:15] and around our city.

[37:20] I appreciate the city's effort

[37:21] to know who is selling pot in

[37:22] our city and where the pot is

[37:25] coming from since they don't

[37:26] have a physical location here

[37:27] within the city and they are in

[37:27] direct competition with

[37:31] the city's permitted retail

[37:32] storefronts that are already

[37:32] delivering.

[37:37] I realize that the first step

[37:37] is to require a registration

[37:38] process.

[37:38] However, our business tax

[37:42] certificate is a nominal fee

[37:43] and does nothing to contribute

[37:43] to the cost of enforcement.

[37:48] So I would be most interested

[37:49] to see what that fee two

[37:50] established by the city manager

[37:55] will be and I hope the system

[37:55] of fines and penalties will

[37:56] enable law enforcement to

[38:00] mitigate the dangers that

[38:01] unlawful pot delivery vehicles

[38:01] create.

[38:02] >> Thank you for hearing my

[38:06] concerns this morning.

[38:06] Thank you.

[38:07] Natalie Raskin if you can

[38:13] please on your right, Natalie.

[38:17] >> Actually I'll speak to one

[38:18] or 2 or 3 and one of.

[38:19] Listening to the marijuana

[38:23] stuff people are acting like

[38:24] this that this is not some

[38:29] plant that you can just grow in

[38:30] your pot in your balcony

[38:30] wherever you MAY be.

[38:35] It can be grown.

[38:36] It's not going to stop growing.

[38:36] People aren't going to stop

[38:37] smoking pot that it's become

[38:42] this every day They call and

[38:42] talk about how evil it is.

[38:47] Maybe they need to smoke a

[38:48] joint themselves but it's

[38:48] always going to grow and it's

[38:51] always going to be distributed

[38:52] 1 or 2 The housing Prevention

[38:53] Grant Yes.

[38:57] I hope this prevents all of

[38:57] the hb holders from becoming

[38:58] homeless on NOVEMBER 30th with

[39:03] the advisory board.

[39:04] I agree with one of the callers

[39:05] who said it needs to be stated

[39:06] or put maybe in libraries or

[39:09] other places when they're

[39:10] holding these advisory boards

[39:10] or committees to be on

[39:15] the board just like there's a

[39:16] homeless advisory board that I

[39:22] was unaware of and I couldn't

[39:23] even apply to get on it because

[39:23] it's locked on the screens and

[39:28] yes to the emergency sewage.

[39:29] I don't know how the federal

[39:30] government has stepped up and

[39:34] made this correct in the first

[39:34] place.

[39:34] Thank you.

[39:35] Thank you, Tony.

[39:39] If you can please Daniel and

[39:40] let me know which item or items

[39:46] you wish to speak to all of

[39:46] them please.

[39:47] Please proceed.

[39:47] Yes.

[39:51] I just wanted to start by

[39:52] saying go reach out to I

[39:52] believe his name is Matt.

[39:57] He was the first person who

[39:57] spoke in person but I just

[39:58] wanted to say I was very much

[40:02] in support of his comments and

[40:03] the way that he articulated his

[40:04] point this morning And I really

[40:04] appreciated that And I wanted

[40:10] to support Natalie Raskin's

[40:10] comments as well.

[40:11] Everyone is a it's been growing

[40:12] and being used as traditional

[40:14] medicine and Chinese culture

[40:15] for the last 5000 years People

[40:16] have been using it all over

[40:16] the planet as a medicine.

[40:21] I think we really need to get

[40:22] over the marijuana phobia that

[40:23] we are and we were exposed to

[40:23] when we come to the city

[40:26] council meetings every single

[40:27] day we hear a new song and

[40:32] dance about how this medicine

[40:33] that Jack Rare has a bunch of

[40:34] science and talked about how we

[40:35] could be using it for hemp

[40:38] fuels and fiber paper and

[40:39] clothes books as an alternative

[40:45] as a at the site free organic

[40:46] natural alternative You know we

[40:51] could cut away with our

[40:51] pharmaceutical use got away

[40:52] with so many industries but I

[40:57] don't support the proposal to

[40:57] increase the punishment and

[41:01] the tax I don't support item 50

[41:02] because I don't want to live in

[41:02] this super litigious society

[41:03] where the only ones that stand

[41:09] to benefit are the lawyers that

[41:09] know the law will come to you.

[41:10] We already live in a superstate

[41:13] stop or society or state

[41:14] borders already have enough

[41:19] time navigating through society

[41:20] ,having fun.

[41:20] I mean we've really put a

[41:21] paywall up for skateboarders

[41:22] where you now have to pay to go

[41:25] to a skate park and my point is

[41:26] that there shouldn't be these

[41:27] obsessive paywalls and these

[41:32] fees and these fines for

[41:32] the society that we're living

[41:33] in.

[41:37] Moving on to the e-bike policy

[41:38] ,I completely support

[41:38] the e-bike regulations because

[41:43] they're out of control and and

[41:44] kids using them are way too

[41:45] young to be going that fast.

[41:49] With regard to the trust

[41:49] ordinance and the policy

[41:55] regarding the fines the grant

[41:56] to be spent on homeland

[41:56] security to apply for more

[41:57] homeland security funds, I

[42:02] think it's absolutely absurd.

[42:02] We we've closed how many

[42:03] homeless shelters we've closed

[42:04] how many parks we've closed how

[42:08] many library hours and we're

[42:08] applying for grants for

[42:09] terrorism that doesn't exist in

[42:13] San Diego at a time when

[42:14] the federal government is

[42:14] calling activists terrorists,

[42:15] it's freaking ridiculous.

[42:18] When is enough enough?

[42:19] And this militarism and this

[42:25] police oversight with lack of

[42:25] accountability.

[42:26] I love what Francine was saying

[42:26] about we don't have enough

[42:31] councilmember members going to

[42:32] our commission meetings.

[42:32] I go to the cbp meetings.

[42:36] I don't see a single one of

[42:36] the council members who's

[42:37] willing to give all the cpd all

[42:38] the toys that they want in

[42:41] the world.

[42:42] I don't see a single one of you

[42:43] showing up to the cpd meetings.

[42:44] I don't see a single one.

[42:44] You're showing up to

[42:48] the privacy advisory Board

[42:49] meetings so I would love to see

[42:50] a lot more oversight from your

[42:54] website and concluded Blair

[42:54] Beckman if you can please and

[42:55] you and let me know which item

[42:59] or items you wish to speak to.

[43:06] I can't mute for you.

[43:07] I'm willing to move on if you

[43:12] can in yourself at this time.

[43:13] >> Hi Claire Beckman My zoom is

[43:16] cutting out This is life and

[43:17] tier one two for me.

[43:17] I'm sorry.

[43:18] Hopefully I can still be here.

[43:26] I wanted to speak on items 52

[43:31] 100 104 and 500.

[43:36] >> Please proceed.

[43:37] Is that okay?

[43:37] Thank you.

[43:38] Thanks That you can hear me

[43:41] first about the item 52

[43:42] the ambulance transport billing

[43:42] and collection services.

[43:47] >> I am really concerned about

[43:48] the situation with Andrea

[43:48] Ebbing.

[43:49] She's had to get a rape test

[43:53] kit after her ambulance ride

[43:54] and her, you know, police

[43:54] incident.

[44:00] I hope her situation can be

[44:01] really looked at with care and

[44:01] sensitivity and that we are

[44:07] pulling for sure and humanity

[44:07] and not for her to be

[44:08] institutionalized.

[44:12] I think that's a really serious

[44:13] problem with that And you guys

[44:13] know that And she deserves to

[44:19] be living freely and we have to

[44:20] talk more clearly on those

[44:20] concepts and and be more clear

[44:21] on that.

[44:21] I could look in all of our

[44:25] efforts to understand the city

[44:26] better and the ambulance roll

[44:27] and all of this What was it

[44:27] what were they doing with her

[44:28] situation?

[44:31] What were the police doing?

[44:31] Good luck in those efforts.

[44:36] Item 100 is our fiscal year

[44:37] Urban area Security Initiative

[44:38] grant program.

[44:42] You guys had this item at a

[44:43] committee meeting a few weeks

[44:43] ago.

[44:44] Quite possibly this item will

[44:50] be the San Diego you ask me.

[44:50] It was suggested that it could

[44:51] appear at public meetings a bit

[44:55] more often to describe what

[44:55] they're doing in their

[44:56] programs.

[44:56] They also are at the quarterly

[45:01] county San Diego County Office

[45:01] of Emergency Services.

[45:02] >> So those are two places that

[45:06] if we keep U.S. Open and

[45:07] accountable and transparent as

[45:08] part of the public process,

[45:13] we'll be in good shape and they

[45:14] need it.

[45:14] And if we do that we'll be

[45:15] practicing well.

[45:15] So really demand that of are

[45:19] you saying that we can attend

[45:19] their meetings?

[45:20] We don't have to be excluded.

[45:20] There are ways to attend their

[45:24] public meetings.

[45:25] I really invite everyone to

[45:25] check out what groups like you

[45:26] see are doing to our local

[45:30] cities and what their role is

[45:31] and how you can can contribute

[45:32] and make ask and demand.

[45:32] You have that ability We don't

[45:36] We don't exercise that very

[45:37] well.

[45:37] Good luck in those sort of

[45:42] efforts about the raw sewage

[45:43] issues, solid waste coming from

[45:48] Tijuana Councilperson from

[45:49] Tijuana is visiting Oceanside

[45:49] these days to check out pure

[45:54] water systems.

[45:55] That's an incredible concept.

[45:55] It MAY take 10 or 15 years to

[45:56] really work on better but in

[46:00] the very least we're

[46:00] communicating with each other

[46:01] Good luck and continuing that

[46:02] communication and it just

[46:07] stresses the incredible

[46:07] importance in working with

[46:08] Tijuana even them.

[46:12] When we disagree we can be just

[46:13] as snobby towards Tijuana as do

[46:13] you want to can be towards us

[46:14] So good luck and good

[46:18] communication is a really good

[46:19] skill to have for a great area,

[46:19] for a great region that we all

[46:24] share and about the issues you

[46:25] know we just have we've been in

[46:28] a state of war for the past two

[46:29] decades.

[46:29] Good luck that we're learning

[46:30] better and better practices of

[46:30] peace.

[46:35] We're talking about peace of

[46:35] our policy making and openness

[46:36] and accountability instead of

[46:36] war.

[46:37] >> That's what your time has

[46:41] concluded, Hector, as our final

[46:41] speaker, please let me know

[46:42] which item or items you wish to

[46:42] speak to.

[46:46] >> I'll speak to all of them.

[46:47] Yeah.

[46:47] Thanks for taking my call

[46:51] because my my my zoom has been

[46:52] going up 3 or 4 times but it

[46:53] keeps reloading.

[46:53] I'm trying to use it but thanks

[46:54] for taking my call.

[46:58] Well, on the dog thing it's

[46:59] going to be hard to go against

[46:59] the drug dealers.

[47:00] They're on the side.

[47:03] They've already got their

[47:04] customers but we've got some

[47:05] legitimate businesses trying to

[47:09] compete with them.

[47:10] But until Trump makes a move on

[47:10] the drug dealers big time,

[47:11] they're always going to win out

[47:15] in the they have cheaper prices

[47:16] but you guys are give it a try

[47:20] on the ebikes I think we should

[47:21] have more enforcement on

[47:21] the boardwalk.

[47:26] There's always guys flying by

[47:27] on the boardwalk in Mission Bay

[47:28] and on Mission Beach on

[47:32] the ocean side and Bayside

[47:33] summer tourist summer Just

[47:34] young kids going crazy but that

[47:39] could make tickets like $400

[47:39] and really stick it to them

[47:46] just for e-bike and on

[47:47] the sidewalks and the t sewer

[47:51] plant We need you to plan

[47:52] Forget all these this and that.

[47:52] We need a plan.

[47:56] We need like six Olympic sized

[47:57] swimming pools Basically what

[48:02] it is to hold the staff and

[48:02] create it Super plastic basic

[48:06] stuff I worked on one in

[48:06] Colorado for two years in

[48:07] the 80s.

[48:07] I know how they work for their

[48:12] basic stuff.

[48:13] It's nothing high tech about

[48:13] it.

[48:14] You know we can do a little bit

[48:18] better job of doing the water

[48:18] but we can use the water for

[48:24] irrigation and that should be a

[48:25] number one priority of our city

[48:25] even the county too.

[48:26] It's it's just it's just

[48:30] embarrassing, you know, that

[48:31] that that's happening and

[48:31] the kids are suffering.

[48:36] The poor people that live in

[48:36] the downwind from that stuff

[48:37] it's disgusting.

[48:41] And then the grants now I've

[48:42] been looking into those block

[48:48] cameras They can go super high

[48:49] tech.

[48:49] They get your license plate,

[48:50] they can get they can get

[48:53] access to your your bank

[48:54] account Everything you bought

[48:55] on eBay, everything you ever

[49:00] did is getting better for them.

[49:01] It's getting better and better

[49:06] information so they can just do

[49:07] it in a split second too.

[49:08] It doesn't take a long time.

[49:12] So I think what you pass

[49:13] the point of no return like

[49:14] five years ago in China they

[49:19] got your face if a guy would

[49:19] cross jaywalk on the street

[49:20] they get his face in the camera

[49:24] by the time you cross

[49:25] the street and not the other

[49:26] side they took the find out of

[49:30] his bank account.

[49:31] That's how quick it works.

[49:32] I'm sure they can do that here.

[49:33] They link it to our bank

[49:37] accounts and we break the law

[49:38] like jaywalking let alone drug.

[49:39] The illegal alien is going to

[49:42] help with a rapid deportation

[49:43] because if you have a face

[49:49] facial recognition, if you're

[49:50] not in the database you're

[49:50] illegal alien and you're time

[49:51] has concluded And that

[49:55] concludes public comment on

[49:55] consent.

[49:56] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All

[49:56] right.

[49:57] Thank you to the Court.

[49:57] And with that I'll turn it to

[49:58] my council colleagues for any

[50:01] questions, comments and

[50:02] entertain a motion and we'll

[50:02] start with Council member

[50:03] Whitburn Thank you.

[50:05] Council PRESIDENT With item 1o2

[50:06] The City Council is getting

[50:07] approval to spend about six of

[50:07] the state's homeless Housing

[50:11] Assistance and Prevention grant

[50:12] .

[50:12] This is the hap funding that

[50:13] the city applied for.

[50:14] It was awarded last year.

[50:16] The city is receiving nearly

[50:17] two $6 million.

[50:18] It'll be used to help people

[50:23] prevent homelessness and also

[50:23] help people who have fallen

[50:24] into homelessness get back at

[50:25] the housing as quickly as

[50:25] possible.

[50:28] There's also an allocation to

[50:29] help homeless youth thanks to

[50:30] Sarah German at the staff for

[50:30] the Homeless Strategies and

[50:36] Solutions Department for

[50:36] successfully securing Round six

[50:37] hap grant funding from

[50:37] the state.

[50:38] I also want to thank the Mayor

[50:40] for going up to the Sacramento

[50:41] to ask for even more money for

[50:42] the program for this year and I

[50:48] think our local legislative

[50:48] delegation to the Governor for

[50:49] agreeing to do so and

[50:50] increasing that allocation I'll

[50:50] make the motion to approve

[50:53] the consent agenda.

[50:54] All right.

[50:54] Thank you, sir.

[50:55] So we have a motion by

[50:56] Councilmember Whitburn to move

[50:56] the consent item.

[50:57] This will be the next to

[50:59] Councilmember Campbell.

[51:00] >> Thank you, Council

[51:00] PRESIDENT.

[51:01] I am happy to second the motion

[51:05] I approve of all the consent

[51:05] items I would like to speak

[51:10] about item 51 about the e-bikes

[51:11] .

[51:11] I want to say a special thank

[51:12] you to our State Assembly

[51:17] member from San Diego and that

[51:17] is Tosha Berner for providing

[51:22] us with this new law in

[51:23] the state ab 2234 which is a

[51:28] compromise item And so we have

[51:29] the children 12 and up are able

[51:35] to ride e-bikes number one and

[51:36] number two class not number

[51:36] three class.

[51:37] Of course children always have

[51:42] to wear their helmets if

[51:42] they're on a bike or any bike

[51:43] they should on the skateboard.

[51:47] Anything they do they should

[51:47] wear a helmet.

[51:48] This law was necessary.

[51:53] It's kind of a pilot study to

[51:53] tell you the truth around

[51:54] the state.

[51:57] It does sunset JANUARY 1st,

[51:58] 2029 So we will have a couple

[51:59] of years of data from around

[52:03] the state.

[52:04] But so far in San Diego we have

[52:04] found a tremendous increase in

[52:09] emergency rooms in e-bike

[52:10] accidents and injuries since

[52:10] 2021 when they started to

[52:15] become very popular.

[52:16] Injuries include head trauma,

[52:21] drama, torso drama, fractures

[52:22] of the ribs, spine fractures

[52:23] and extremity fractures.

[52:28] So it hits the whole body and

[52:28] it's not good for anybody.

[52:29] And those of us who are old

[52:30] know that all these injuries

[52:33] stay with us and really crop up

[52:34] once we reach a certain age.

[52:34] So it's really important to

[52:39] prevent remember Ben Franklin

[52:40] of course I'm about as old as

[52:41] he was when he was alive but he

[52:45] said prevention of an ounce of

[52:46] prevention is worth a pound of

[52:51] cure And so I think that's what

[52:51] Assemblymember Berner was

[52:52] trying to help us with.

[52:53] Our local collection data

[52:57] reflects the growing prevalence

[52:58] of e-bike crashes crashes and

[53:03] it is a crisis in San Diego

[53:03] Police Department data.

[53:07] We see that since 2021 e-bike

[53:08] accidents that are reported

[53:13] have increased four times

[53:13] quadrupled.

[53:18] There were 23 incidents in 2021

[53:19] and now at least 84 incidents

[53:20] have been reported for 2025.

[53:25] So you can see that improving

[53:25] the safety of children is so

[53:26] important.

[53:31] I think the age restriction is

[53:31] too low but I think once we get

[53:32] the data from from this study

[53:37] or from around the state, we'll

[53:37] see that we probably should

[53:38] make it 16 and we probably

[53:38] should insist they have

[53:42] training and a license before

[53:43] they ride their e-bikes because

[53:48] I see these kids and I use my

[53:49] my heart leaps on.

[53:49] We're worried about them

[53:50] getting hurt And as a family

[53:54] doctor it I know better So I

[53:54] hope that it helps.

[53:55] I want to give a shout out to

[54:00] State Senator Catherine Blake

[54:00] Speer.

[54:01] She is also helping to make us

[54:05] safer by proposing Senate Bill

[54:11] 1167 that addresses emotions

[54:11] cycles and puts more

[54:12] responsibility on manufacturers

[54:13] to differentiate between

[54:17] the different classes of

[54:18] e-bikes which usually you don't

[54:18] even find in the store.

[54:19] They don't tell you Oh this

[54:23] class three your kid can't

[54:23] write it legally but we need to

[54:28] know all that and we need to

[54:28] have the manufacturers be

[54:29] responsible for what they're

[54:33] selling and hopefully her

[54:34] legislation will advance as

[54:34] well to continue to improve

[54:39] safety for the riders.

[54:40] And I just want to say thank

[54:45] you to my colleagues and for

[54:45] bringing all these consent

[54:50] items forward and to

[54:51] the council PRESIDENT And I am

[54:52] definitely in favor.

[54:57] So thank you so much.

[54:57] >> All right.

[54:58] Thank you.

[54:58] And with that we have a motion

[54:59] by council member Whipper in

[55:00] the second by Council member

[55:02] Campbell to move the consent

[55:03] items will go next to council

[55:04] member Von Wilbert.

[55:04] Thank you very much.

[55:05] I've spoken to many of these

[55:08] items previously so I will keep

[55:08] this short.

[55:09] But on item 51 electric bike

[55:10] all electric bicycle safety

[55:14] regulations I am pleased to

[55:15] support this item.

[55:15] As we've seen across San Diego

[55:16] there have been a troubling

[55:19] increase in serious crashes

[55:20] involving high powered electric

[55:21] bikes and electric motorcycles

[55:25] operated by minors recently in

[55:25] Black Mountain and Scripps

[55:26] Ranch where young people

[55:30] suffered serious injuries or

[55:31] injuries.

[55:31] We have seen the importance of

[55:32] taking a thoughtful look about

[55:33] whether our current state laws

[55:35] and enforcement tools are

[55:36] keeping pace with these

[55:36] emerging safety concerns And

[55:37] what happened at riding a

[55:40] regular bike.

[55:41] We can still use those two but

[55:47] I appreciate the work of a

[55:47] council working Pro assembly

[55:48] member Tasha Burner, Senator

[55:49] Blake Speer and our city staff

[55:52] and our partners on this on

[55:53] item one of three with

[55:53] the reappointment to the Senior

[55:58] Affairs Advisory Board I'm very

[55:58] pleased to appoint

[55:59] the reappointment Gwen or

[55:59] Hilary to the Senior Officers

[56:02] Advisory Board in their two

[56:03] year term with Hilary Brings

[56:04] dedicate a decade of health

[56:07] care leadership and operational

[56:07] experience.

[56:08] The proven track record of

[56:08] managing complex health care

[56:12] organizations throughout her

[56:12] career she's overseen large

[56:13] scale health care operations

[56:14] including administering a

[56:18] Medicare five star 192 bed long

[56:18] term care hospital with a

[56:22] budget of $36 million.

[56:23] A lot of work that you have

[56:23] done.

[56:24] You've also founded and led

[56:27] nonprofit organizations

[56:27] bringing valuable governing

[56:28] experience, financial oversight

[56:29] and organizational management

[56:32] to your role on this board.

[56:33] She's also worked to strengthen

[56:33] collaboration across the health

[56:37] care system by establishing

[56:37] eight post-acute care and

[56:38] hospital community forums

[56:39] demonstrating her commitment to

[56:39] improving coordination and

[56:42] patient care.

[56:43] We are grateful to have your

[56:44] experience on the board.

[56:44] Thank you for serving again for

[56:51] serving your city and with that

[56:51] I will support the content

[56:52] agenda.

[56:52] All right.

[56:53] Thank you Council Beaumont

[56:54] We'll go next to Council member

[56:54] Isla Rivera.

[56:55] >> Thank you.

[56:55] Also the PRESIDENT Wanted to

[56:59] start by just quickly saying

[56:59] that items 500 I appreciate

[57:00] the work done by the Privacy

[57:03] Advisory Board to approve

[57:08] the use of this technology.

[57:12] I see that that happened on

[57:13] APRIL 9th which is why I'll be

[57:13] supporting what's in front of

[57:17] us today.

[57:18] And then I did want to turn to

[57:21] item one of two.

[57:26] So I don't know if Sara or Kota

[57:26] .

[57:27] I do have a few questions here

[57:31] around our acceptance

[57:32] appropriation and expanding of

[57:41] round six of hap funding.

[57:42] >> So I spent some time going

[57:46] through the documents here And

[57:47] first Sara, as always, thanks

[57:47] for all of your work.

[57:51] You have a incredibly difficult

[57:51] job with not nearly enough

[57:55] resources and I want to

[57:56] acknowledge that before I get

[58:00] into my questions here at

[58:01] the table that I am looking at

[58:10] for the for the plan is pretty

[58:10] light on details.

[58:15] It's a simple table labeled Hub

[58:19] six funding plan.

[58:23] In that table there's a 2.2

[58:24] million for prevention and

[58:28] shelter diversion and almost 18

[58:28] million for operating subsidies

[58:29] for housing.

[58:32] Can you talk to us about ratio

[58:37] there and the choices that fed

[58:42] into this being the ratio?

[58:42] Sure.

[58:47] I will point that in

[58:47] the presentation that's

[58:48] attached to the item There is a

[58:51] little bit more detail on each

[58:52] of those So it'll be split

[58:52] between what sorts of

[58:53] prevention and diversion are

[58:56] funded along with what interim

[58:57] housing subsidies there are

[59:02] there which is mostly

[59:02] the shelter system.

[59:03] I will say that for just as is

[59:08] is that bullet points under

[59:09] each of those because I had a

[59:13] difficult time finding

[59:14] specifically which programs or

[59:19] shelters are being funded with

[59:20] um with these hap dollars sure

[59:23] would be helpful.

[59:24] I run through it really quickly

[59:24] sort of.

[59:25] So for prevention and shelter

[59:28] diversion the city is proposing

[59:28] to fund family reunification

[59:29] the housing instability

[59:33] prevention program and

[59:33] the Diversion Program.

[59:34] That's the new program that we

[59:35] discussed about when we brought

[59:37] this item before previously for

[59:38] operating subsidies, interim

[59:41] housing We're funding the 16th

[59:42] and Newton Bridge shelter

[59:43] the single adult and seniors

[59:46] interim shelter for women and

[59:47] family shelter the Salvation

[59:48] Army Interim Family Shelter and

[59:51] the Travelodge family shelter.

[59:51] In addition to that, under

[59:52] the youth set aside we are

[59:53] funding a significant portion

[59:56] of our youth shelters within

[59:57] the system And then we do have

[59:57] administrative costs for both

[59:58] the city, the housing

[1:00:01] commission and for each of my

[1:00:02] assets that will go to

[1:00:05] the continuum of care in terms

[1:00:06] of the ratio that you mentioned

[1:00:07] previously, I will say that as

[1:00:11] we do this application we do it

[1:00:12] as a collective unit between

[1:00:15] the city, the county and

[1:00:16] the regional task force for

[1:00:16] the cities.

[1:00:17] The city has proposed

[1:00:20] allocation.

[1:00:21] A large portion of that does

[1:00:21] come from the shelter system

[1:00:22] because it is an eligible

[1:00:25] expense.

[1:00:25] So if you recall at least 50%

[1:00:30] of our hap application needs to

[1:00:30] be for housing focused

[1:00:31] programs.

[1:00:34] Housing focused programs do

[1:00:35] include shelter.

[1:00:35] They do include prevention,

[1:00:36] they would include permanent

[1:00:36] housing.

[1:00:39] But as this fits into

[1:00:39] the larger puzzle piece of

[1:00:40] the budget system, this is this

[1:00:44] is the proposal that we came

[1:00:44] forward.

[1:00:45] It only differs very slightly

[1:00:45] from when you saw this

[1:00:49] previously in JANUARY.

[1:00:50] So I would like to touch on

[1:00:50] that for you.

[1:00:51] The one major change is within

[1:00:54] safe parking so safe parking

[1:00:55] was no longer considered a

[1:00:55] housing focused program So we

[1:00:59] did swap out safe parking to

[1:01:00] find additional shelter beds to

[1:01:04] kind of meet that match.

[1:01:04] And then also we did make one

[1:01:05] one slight change in funding

[1:01:08] the housing instability

[1:01:09] prevention program to offset

[1:01:10] some of the general fund that

[1:01:10] came out of the final budget

[1:01:14] Council action.

[1:01:14] Right.

[1:01:15] Thank you.

[1:01:18] Appreciate that detail.

[1:01:19] The shelters that are being

[1:01:24] funded, can you talk to us

[1:01:28] about how the success rate of

[1:01:29] placing folks into housing is

[1:01:33] factored into which shelters

[1:01:34] will be funded with that

[1:01:34] dollars?

[1:01:38] >> It's not necessary.

[1:01:38] Lee factored in Each of our

[1:01:39] shelter contracts have

[1:01:43] contracted kind of metrics to

[1:01:44] meet those success rates.

[1:01:44] I don't have those in front of

[1:01:48] me today but it's not

[1:01:49] necessarily a factor Generally

[1:01:53] across the board we see we see

[1:01:53] a similar kind of goal target

[1:01:54] for success rate within our

[1:01:58] shelter system, Right?

[1:01:58] And in that goal target is

[1:01:59] pretty similar.

[1:02:02] The actual rate though and

[1:02:03] obviously different populations

[1:02:06] are different challenges means

[1:02:12] that timeline might look

[1:02:14] different But I do think it's

[1:02:20] important for us to have that

[1:02:20] be the goal and thus to hold

[1:02:23] both the providers accountable

[1:02:28] to that goal and ourselves.

[1:02:31] To what extent if at all does

[1:02:36] what we are utilizing this

[1:02:41] round of funding account for

[1:02:42] emergency housing voucher

[1:02:42] program and what's happening

[1:02:46] there this funding other than

[1:02:51] really the diversion funding

[1:02:52] included here and the diversion

[1:02:52] collected with the Housing

[1:02:55] Commission In my opinion would

[1:02:56] be the largest kind of a step

[1:02:57] forward for folks under

[1:03:01] the emergency housing voucher

[1:03:01] program.

[1:03:02] If you'd like more information,

[1:03:02] I'd be happy to go back to

[1:03:03] the Housing commission and we

[1:03:06] can we can bring that

[1:03:07] information forward to you.

[1:03:10] >> I'm familiar with I mean I

[1:03:11] think I'm pretty well versed in

[1:03:12] what the Housing commission's

[1:03:14] doing.

[1:03:15] We have and I am glad the city

[1:03:20] invested in prevention and

[1:03:20] diversion in the budget that

[1:03:24] was just approved.

[1:03:25] At the same time we have a

[1:03:29] specific number of very

[1:03:34] vulnerable families that are

[1:03:35] going to be losing assistance

[1:03:39] that keeps them housed and it

[1:03:39] would seem important that we

[1:03:49] account for that in the in

[1:03:49] the housing and homelessness

[1:03:50] housing and prevention funding

[1:03:51] that we're receiving from

[1:04:01] the state attorney quickly to

[1:04:01] to round seven if I understand

[1:04:02] it, round seven is going to be

[1:04:07] allocated toward the to

[1:04:07] the same cities that received

[1:04:08] top six funding not necessarily

[1:04:11] the same amounts.

[1:04:11] That's to be determined in a

[1:04:12] couple of months.

[1:04:16] That's correct.

[1:04:17] So the state of California will

[1:04:17] release the notice of funding

[1:04:21] availability for the city along

[1:04:22] with the counties and the Cox

[1:04:25] Hap seven is at 900 million

[1:04:26] right now which is more apples

[1:04:30] to apples than Hap Six was

[1:04:30] funded four So back of

[1:04:31] the napkin math we could

[1:04:34] anticipate anywhere between 26

[1:04:35] and $30 million that however

[1:04:39] that is dependent upon various

[1:04:39] factors.

[1:04:40] A lot of it is of course block

[1:04:44] and formula based and will be

[1:04:44] based upon our point in time

[1:04:48] count across the state.

[1:04:48] Okay.

[1:04:53] The one of the things that I

[1:04:58] was unsure of is whether or not

[1:04:58] so maybe if I'm understanding

[1:05:02] correctly the purpose of

[1:05:03] providing funding to the same

[1:05:04] cities was to reduce

[1:05:04] administrative costs and

[1:05:07] administrative time and getting

[1:05:08] hap $7 out the door making

[1:05:12] the best use of those funds.

[1:05:13] But I didn't necessarily

[1:05:15] understand at least at first

[1:05:16] glance is whether or not we

[1:05:21] will be bound by the way we're

[1:05:21] spending have six funding in

[1:05:26] how we spend app seven No so

[1:05:27] have seven Will We'll still be

[1:05:29] able to allocate help seven

[1:05:30] separately and hap seven will

[1:05:31] still have to come before

[1:05:31] the City Council for us to

[1:05:34] accept appropriate and expended

[1:05:35] the process for the application

[1:05:39] As far as we understand today

[1:05:39] will be slightly

[1:05:40] administratively better where

[1:05:40] instead of an entirely kind of

[1:05:44] new application will be able to

[1:05:45] amend the application But that

[1:05:45] does not tie our hands to

[1:05:49] the allocations that you have

[1:05:50] in front of you today And it

[1:05:51] also would require council

[1:05:51] approval.

[1:05:53] Okay.

[1:05:54] I appreciate that.

[1:05:59] So one of the it feels like it

[1:06:03] there's a it's like a rite of

[1:06:04] seasonal right of me saying

[1:06:08] that I want to make sure that

[1:06:09] the city council not only has

[1:06:12] an opportunity to approve but

[1:06:13] to weigh in on the application

[1:06:14] and the way that we are going,

[1:06:15] what we are going to be

[1:06:17] pursuing funding for.

[1:06:19] So is there a plan to engage

[1:06:23] the council before

[1:06:23] the application is submitted

[1:06:24] Because at that point in front

[1:06:25] of us I'm not going to say no

[1:06:28] to receiving the funds but that

[1:06:28] doesn't necessarily mean that

[1:06:29] the funds that we're pursuing

[1:06:33] are being then that doesn't

[1:06:33] necessarily mean that it's

[1:06:37] the it's the best use of

[1:06:38] the funds in my mind or

[1:06:39] the mind of the council And

[1:06:39] maybe it MAY not be but we have

[1:06:42] not necessarily had

[1:06:42] the opportunity to weigh in if

[1:06:43] we don't have a chance to do

[1:06:44] that with the application

[1:06:47] before it's submitted.

[1:06:47] So what will that process look

[1:06:48] like?

[1:06:48] Councilmember my department is

[1:06:52] happy to bring forward our

[1:06:53] proposed allocations similarly

[1:06:53] to what we did with hap six

[1:06:56] prior to actually submitting

[1:06:57] our application and that seems

[1:06:58] agreeable ultimately, you know

[1:07:02] Council PRESIDENT And the Chair

[1:07:03] of the Land Use and Housing

[1:07:03] Committee But certainly my

[1:07:07] preference that we would have

[1:07:08] an opportunity to weigh in

[1:07:08] before that application and

[1:07:11] submitted And then the last

[1:07:12] question I don't see it listed

[1:07:12] here and I didn't hear you

[1:07:16] mention it save camping not

[1:07:17] funded with happens.

[1:07:17] That's correct.

[1:07:20] And is that because they're not

[1:07:21] eligible or just a different

[1:07:22] decision by the city Save

[1:07:26] sleeping is similarly to say

[1:07:26] parking is not considered

[1:07:27] shelter under hud's definitions

[1:07:30] and therefore doesn't qualify

[1:07:31] under the 50% necessary to be

[1:07:31] allocated towards housing

[1:07:35] focused solutions.

[1:07:35] So as the three jurisdictions

[1:07:36] collaborated for this

[1:07:40] application we did not include

[1:07:41] anything that would not be

[1:07:41] counted in that category.

[1:07:42] So safe sleeping does not count

[1:07:46] in that category so therefore

[1:07:47] it's not Ed thank you, sir.

[1:07:47] >> Thank you.

[1:07:48] PRESIDENT Sorry Before you

[1:07:51] leaving before I go to

[1:07:51] Councilmember Campo, the No fy

[1:07:52] hasn't been released.

[1:07:55] Do we know what the submittal

[1:07:55] deadline is?

[1:07:56] >> We do not.

[1:07:57] Not to my understanding.

[1:08:00] Okay.

[1:08:00] I'm just thinking about trying

[1:08:01] to respond to the request.

[1:08:05] So if you call my office now

[1:08:06] once that an offer comes out,

[1:08:06] council PRESIDENT Will pull all

[1:08:07] that information together and

[1:08:10] we'll get in touch with your

[1:08:10] office.

[1:08:10] Okay?

[1:08:11] Just determine whether we can

[1:08:12] actually schedule it for

[1:08:14] council or you'll have to have

[1:08:15] individual briefings coming to

[1:08:15] the council meetings.

[1:08:16] All right.

[1:08:19] Thank you very much, Sara.

[1:08:20] >> With that let's go to

[1:08:21] Councilmember Camp here.

[1:08:21] Thank you, Council PRESIDENT.

[1:08:23] I'll keep it brief.

[1:08:24] I want to thank my colleagues

[1:08:25] for their support over

[1:08:27] the previous weeks on item

[1:08:27] 5051, the Cannabis Delivery

[1:08:28] Services Business permit and

[1:08:32] the electric bike safety

[1:08:32] regulations.

[1:08:33] But most of all I want to thank

[1:08:34] two staff members who put in

[1:08:37] months and months and even

[1:08:38] years of time into those

[1:08:38] policies.

[1:08:39] Carrie Shaw working on

[1:08:41] the Electric Bicycle Safety

[1:08:42] regulations and Summer Payton

[1:08:42] working on the cannabis

[1:08:46] delivery permit meeting with

[1:08:46] hundreds of stakeholders on

[1:08:47] that and dozens of meetings.

[1:08:48] So I just wanted to give them a

[1:08:48] shout out for their very, very

[1:08:51] good work on getting unanimous

[1:08:52] vote on those So thank you.

[1:08:52] Thank you.

[1:08:56] Council Member Campo Where are

[1:08:56] the pretty faces?

[1:08:57] They're the ones who do

[1:08:57] the hard work.

[1:09:00] They do acknowledge them And

[1:09:01] we'll go back to council member

[1:09:01] Lippert.

[1:09:02] >> Thank you.

[1:09:02] Council PRESIDENT Very briefly

[1:09:05] I just want to thank MR. Ahmed

[1:09:05] for answering the questions in

[1:09:06] regard to the allocations I

[1:09:10] fully support the Council have

[1:09:10] any opportunity to review

[1:09:11] the applications.

[1:09:14] The one thing I would say is

[1:09:15] that when we do that I think

[1:09:19] it'd be helpful to do that at

[1:09:20] the context of the overall city

[1:09:24] spending on homelessness

[1:09:24] services because if you just

[1:09:28] look at one slice it could look

[1:09:32] weighted very differently than

[1:09:33] it does when you look at

[1:09:34] the entirety of homelessness

[1:09:37] spending as a whole.

[1:09:38] So I just think that any time

[1:09:39] we're looking at homeless

[1:09:42] spending we should look at it

[1:09:43] in the context of what

[1:09:43] the city's spending is overall.

[1:09:44] That's all I would say.

[1:09:47] Thank you.

[1:09:47] All right.

[1:09:48] Thank you, Councilmember

[1:09:48] Whitburn.

[1:09:52] I think a point well taken.

[1:09:53] Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee

[1:09:56] then council PRESIDENT I wanted

[1:09:57] to take a moment to

[1:09:57] congratulate MR. Putin for his

[1:10:00] continued service on the senior

[1:10:01] advisory board and certainly

[1:10:05] long history in terms of

[1:10:06] serving the Filipino-American

[1:10:07] community and your service on

[1:10:11] this board has been appreciated

[1:10:11] for quite some time so thank

[1:10:12] you for continuing that.

[1:10:16] And then similar follow up to

[1:10:16] their funding as well.

[1:10:17] I do think we should appreciate

[1:10:21] and acknowledge that the final

[1:10:21] movements on the budget at

[1:10:22] the state level ended up

[1:10:23] trending in a very positive

[1:10:26] direction and increasing those

[1:10:27] dollars because they've

[1:10:31] continued to be at risk.

[1:10:32] It seems like year after year i

[1:10:36] don't feel a strong of a need

[1:10:36] and that's just my feedback.

[1:10:37] Council PRESIDENT To have an

[1:10:38] entire hearing item to review

[1:10:41] the specifics of what we're

[1:10:41] submitting grant wise But

[1:10:42] the details would be helpful.

[1:10:45] So if there was a larger

[1:10:46] discussion around homelessness

[1:10:46] in terms of grant funding, how

[1:10:50] that ties to expenditure is

[1:10:51] does feel like we do some of

[1:10:54] that during the budget as well

[1:10:55] But just knowing that docketing

[1:10:56] can be difficult at times just

[1:10:59] want to appreciate how we can

[1:11:00] get information in the best way

[1:11:01] that would help us.

[1:11:01] So thank you.

[1:11:04] Sure Absolutely.

[1:11:05] Well all kind of way that in

[1:11:08] and work with Sara and her team

[1:11:09] and the mayor's office about

[1:11:14] how to navigate that So I don't

[1:11:15] see anybody else in my life

[1:11:19] clearly I don't want to was

[1:11:20] the popular one on the consent

[1:11:21] agenda and offer some closing

[1:11:23] thoughts And I'll start out by

[1:11:24] thanking Sara you and each

[1:11:27] other state team for your work

[1:11:28] in securing the Round six grant

[1:11:29] and your command of what you're

[1:11:32] doing and how you're doing it

[1:11:33] and every little detail about

[1:11:37] it was a good testimony and

[1:11:38] your answers to my colleague

[1:11:42] there.

[1:11:43] The allocated funding for

[1:11:44] the city as well as the county

[1:11:44] and the art efforts through

[1:11:47] the joint application

[1:11:48] demonstrates the previously

[1:11:48] ongoing efforts of this region

[1:11:52] to deliver on results and use

[1:11:52] the funding strategically and

[1:11:53] effectively in our city's

[1:11:54] ability to apply this funding.

[1:11:57] Over the past six years is also

[1:11:58] the reason the governor and

[1:11:58] the state legislator agreed on

[1:12:02] full funding for Hap seven in

[1:12:02] the current budget.

[1:12:06] That was certainly a moment to

[1:12:07] celebrate earlier in the state

[1:12:07] budget cycle I had

[1:12:11] the opportunity to join path

[1:12:12] and other housing leaders

[1:12:13] across the state in Sacramento

[1:12:13] to speak to the importance of

[1:12:16] hap and how cities like San

[1:12:17] Diego both use this grant to

[1:12:17] reduce homelessness and provide

[1:12:20] housing as well as leverage

[1:12:21] those dollars with local

[1:12:25] resources And this is what

[1:12:26] we're doing with hap around six

[1:12:29] and I appreciate every effort

[1:12:30] what efforts to maintain this

[1:12:34] grant We have a lot of work to

[1:12:35] do and this grant provides

[1:12:36] the annual funding and I think

[1:12:40] that it goes to speaks to what

[1:12:41] my colleagues refer to.

[1:12:41] The challenge of this is an

[1:12:45] ongoing issue.

[1:12:45] These are people's lives and

[1:12:49] we're trying to create

[1:12:50] sustainable sustainable

[1:12:51] solutions And every year we

[1:12:54] have to apply for those grants

[1:12:55] And even though we have a track

[1:12:59] record of getting those grants,

[1:13:00] the being on pins and needles

[1:13:00] when people's lives are at

[1:13:04] stake makes us so problematic

[1:13:05] For now we can be grateful for

[1:13:08] now we can be grateful that we

[1:13:09] have seven will be a bigger

[1:13:13] chunk than Hap six But there is

[1:13:14] a lot more work to do.

[1:13:15] Council member Eli Rivera

[1:13:15] mentioned the emergency housing

[1:13:18] vouchers which is a separate

[1:13:19] but important conversation

[1:13:22] about that vulnerability.

[1:13:23] Council member Whipper and I

[1:13:27] talked with Senator Shift about

[1:13:28] the 13,000 units that are

[1:13:28] currently housing units are

[1:13:32] currently under contract and

[1:13:32] whether they will remain under

[1:13:33] contract for the people who

[1:13:36] live there.

[1:13:37] There are so many things that

[1:13:38] require sustainable ongoing

[1:13:38] funding.

[1:13:41] We're not there yet but

[1:13:42] hopefully we can work together

[1:13:47] to get to a better solutions.

[1:13:48] >> And before I call for

[1:13:49] the vote we'll go back to

[1:13:52] Councilmember Eli Rivera one

[1:13:52] more time.

[1:13:52] Thank you.

[1:13:53] Council PRESIDENT.

[1:13:54] I just want to add some

[1:13:54] additional context here.

[1:13:57] I think one of the things that

[1:13:57] I just frankly struggled with

[1:14:01] over the last five and a half

[1:14:09] years is this this idea that

[1:14:10] it's important to recognize

[1:14:11] the work that is being done and

[1:14:18] also simultaneously not for a

[1:14:18] second pretend that I'm

[1:14:19] satisfied with the progress

[1:14:23] that's been made and we only

[1:14:27] get so many bites at the apple

[1:14:28] when it comes to the funding

[1:14:31] that we receive that we receive

[1:14:35] specifically for homelessness

[1:14:36] And I want to make sure that we

[1:14:37] are being as thoughtful as

[1:14:41] possible every single time we

[1:14:42] get that bite of the apple.

[1:14:42] And I'm going to be very frank

[1:14:46] that for those of us who joined

[1:14:50] the council in 2020 and those

[1:14:50] who were already here starting

[1:14:54] in 2018, the administration was

[1:14:55] not nearly open enough with our

[1:14:58] input not feedback but input

[1:15:03] about how we would spend our

[1:15:04] precious resources as it

[1:15:04] relates to homelessness And it

[1:15:09] was a tug of war to simply get

[1:15:13] the opportunity for the council

[1:15:14] to weigh in before the cake was

[1:15:14] baked And we were essentially

[1:15:19] told Do you want the money or

[1:15:19] not?

[1:15:20] Not how do you want to spend it

[1:15:23] which is the most important

[1:15:27] power that we hold as a council

[1:15:28] .

[1:15:28] But will you will we or won't

[1:15:29] we receive it which is

[1:15:32] obviously a choice that we

[1:15:33] would never say no to.

[1:15:37] So that is why I just want to

[1:15:38] provide some additional context

[1:15:39] for why I guard so jealously

[1:15:41] the council's ability to weigh

[1:15:42] in on the front end and if I

[1:15:47] had my way we would be having

[1:15:47] these conversations on a much

[1:15:48] more regular basis.

[1:15:49] But they I recognize they are

[1:15:52] exhausting and challenging But

[1:15:56] the reality is is that despite

[1:15:57] this being a priority for

[1:16:01] the Council, despite the amount

[1:16:02] of time we spent on it, despite

[1:16:02] the way that I know it keeps

[1:16:06] some of us up at night,

[1:16:07] tonight's meeting runs longer.

[1:16:08] We're going to walk out of this

[1:16:11] building and there's going to

[1:16:12] be people sleeping outside

[1:16:12] the doors of City Hall And we

[1:16:13] MAY not like the way that

[1:16:16] that's told to us as a council

[1:16:21] but it is a fact and so long as

[1:16:22] that is the case, I want to

[1:16:24] make sure that we are not

[1:16:24] sacrificing for a second and

[1:16:25] the opportunity we have to

[1:16:26] determine how those dollars are

[1:16:30] spent and whether or not

[1:16:31] they're being spent well And we

[1:16:31] can have that conversation

[1:16:34] without for a second dismissing

[1:16:35] or disrespecting or denying

[1:16:39] the incredible work that city

[1:16:40] staff does on an issue that is

[1:16:44] not their making and far beyond

[1:16:48] any one individual's ability or

[1:16:48] even one city's ability to

[1:16:49] solve for.

[1:16:49] So thank you for the additional

[1:16:53] time Councilor PRESIDENT I just

[1:16:54] wanted to add that context.

[1:16:55] >> No, I appreciate that and I

[1:16:58] think that without drifting too

[1:16:58] far off course that's

[1:17:02] the continuing challenge of

[1:17:02] incremental things that staff

[1:17:03] is responding to deadlines and

[1:17:07] different buckets of money in

[1:17:07] different red tape and

[1:17:08] different bureaucracy where

[1:17:12] it's difficult to grab hold of

[1:17:13] the totality of what we're

[1:17:14] trying to do and what our

[1:17:17] priorities are And then we

[1:17:18] scramble in JUNE to try to make

[1:17:21] sense of the overall budget

[1:17:22] when we've already

[1:17:22] predetermined so many decisions

[1:17:25] along the way.

[1:17:31] We can always, always do better

[1:17:31] .

[1:17:32] Okay with that we do have a

[1:17:33] motion by Councilmember Lipper

[1:17:33] and the second by council

[1:17:34] member Campbell Park.

[1:17:38] >> Please call the roll start

[1:17:38] of the voting system.

[1:17:43] Please cast your vote that

[1:17:51] passes eight to that passes

[1:17:51] unanimously 9 to 0.

[1:17:52] Thank you.

[1:17:55] Council PRESIDENT.

[1:17:56] All right.

[1:17:56] Thank you, Clark.

[1:17:56] Thank you.

[1:18:00] My colleagues.

[1:18:01] Thank you to staff for making

[1:18:02] yourselves available on

[1:18:05] the consent items.

[1:18:06] So before we go to non agenda

[1:18:10] or public comment, are there

[1:18:11] any comments from the mayor's

[1:18:11] office, Council members, City

[1:18:12] attorney Independent budget

[1:18:15] analyst or city clerk Not

[1:18:16] seeing anything from

[1:18:19] the mayor's office but we see

[1:18:20] the city clerk is on

[1:18:20] the lights.

[1:18:21] >> Thank you Council PRESIDENT

[1:18:24] I did just want to make an

[1:18:25] additional announcement due to

[1:18:29] the changes with organized

[1:18:29] presentations we have found

[1:18:30] capacity and new technology

[1:18:34] assets to be able to also allow

[1:18:35] any individual speakers to also

[1:18:39] be able to submit any organ to

[1:18:40] any type of PowerPoint video

[1:18:44] audio to wwe w dot San

[1:18:48] diego.Gov/materials two hours

[1:18:48] before the meeting whether they

[1:18:49] are presenting here in council

[1:18:52] chambers or virtually.

[1:18:53] So this is for individual

[1:18:54] speakers not just group

[1:18:57] presentations If they would

[1:18:57] like to share a PowerPoint or

[1:18:58] an audio video they can submit

[1:19:02] that again to San Diego to

[1:19:03] slash materials two hours

[1:19:06] before the meeting and if you'd

[1:19:07] like additional information

[1:19:08] please be sure to go to w w w

[1:19:12] dot San Diego dot gov slash

[1:19:12] participate.

[1:19:13] Thank you so much Council

[1:19:13] PRESIDENT All right thank you

[1:19:17] for that continuous effort will

[1:19:18] go to council member Yvonne

[1:19:21] Wolpert and thank you I just

[1:19:22] wanted to commemorate the three

[1:19:23] firefighters who were killed a

[1:19:26] few days ago battling

[1:19:27] the Sydney fire in the ward of

[1:19:31] Utah and Colorado.

[1:19:32] They were young Emily Barker,

[1:19:32] Nick Hutcherson and Sydney

[1:19:35] Watson were killed while

[1:19:36] battling the fire.

[1:19:36] The U.S. Forest Service says

[1:19:40] they were part of the rifle

[1:19:41] heat crew that jumped into

[1:19:42] the were smokejumpers that

[1:19:46] helped to try and prevent

[1:19:47] fires.

[1:19:47] And so we here in San Diego

[1:19:48] have just commemorated

[1:19:51] the Cedar Fire anniversary and

[1:19:51] the Witch Creek Fire

[1:19:52] anniversary recently.

[1:19:53] So thank you for your service

[1:19:55] to our country and we need to

[1:19:56] do better to protect our

[1:19:56] workers.

[1:19:56] So thank you.

[1:19:57] All right.

[1:19:57] Thank you.

[1:20:00] Council member Vaughn Wolpert

[1:20:01] not seen any other requests to

[1:20:01] speak.

[1:20:05] We will now take up non agenda

[1:20:06] public comment Council members

[1:20:07] respect and appreciate

[1:20:10] the public input and are fully

[1:20:11] committed to protecting every

[1:20:12] participant's free speech

[1:20:12] rights at council and committee

[1:20:15] meetings.

[1:20:16] Clerk Please proceed with

[1:20:16] public comment.

[1:20:17] Thank you.

[1:20:18] Council PRESIDENT Pearl 2.7 on

[1:20:19] the general public comment is

[1:20:20] an opportunity for members of

[1:20:21] the public to comment on items

[1:20:24] that are not on the agenda but

[1:20:24] within the subject matter

[1:20:25] jurisdiction of the City

[1:20:25] Council.

[1:20:29] Each speaker will have two

[1:20:29] minutes.

[1:20:30] Please note if there are eight

[1:20:30] or more speakers on a single

[1:20:31] topic the maximum time for

[1:20:33] the topic will be 16 minutes.

[1:20:33] If you're in chambers please

[1:20:34] submit your speaker slip If

[1:20:37] you're joining us virtually

[1:20:38] please raise your hand at this

[1:20:39] time by tapping the raise your

[1:20:39] hand icon or if you're calling

[1:20:43] participants two hour nine If I

[1:20:44] can have Damian Robertson

[1:20:44] please come up to

[1:20:48] the microphone after that if I

[1:20:48] can get Steven Gerrard to

[1:20:53] please come up to the yellow

[1:20:53] reserved seats Taylor Partridge

[1:20:57] and then we'll be Maximillian

[1:20:58] Schmidt and allegedly Audra

[1:20:59] Damian Please proceed.

[1:21:02] Hey, how are we doing?

[1:21:03] My name is Damian Robertson.

[1:21:03] I would ask for a little bit

[1:21:04] more than two minutes.

[1:21:05] I will come back an afternoon

[1:21:07] if I have to start now I am

[1:21:12] part of the circle of service.

[1:21:13] I'm got my eyes on you now, MR.

[1:21:16] Shawn Yellow Rivera Basically I

[1:21:16] have a plan that is about

[1:21:21] homeless outreach People,

[1:21:22] places and things I can see in

[1:21:23] all the budgets I've seen how

[1:21:23] it works.

[1:21:26] I created my own companies that

[1:21:27] are employee owned and then I

[1:21:27] created another resource that

[1:21:28] is Let us Empower which is a

[1:21:32] staff If you are an

[1:21:32] organization, if you're Joe

[1:21:36] LaCava, if you are my man Jeff

[1:21:37] over here who's a great male

[1:21:38] detail I know the city pretty

[1:21:38] well.

[1:21:41] I've been part of everything of

[1:21:42] it and I would like to be heard

[1:21:45] on ways to allocate these

[1:21:46] budget funding, maybe even put

[1:21:46] a partnership sponsorship

[1:21:50] apprenticeship for resources.

[1:21:51] It's a job source.

[1:21:51] I've created the companies

[1:21:56] myself They are they are they

[1:21:57] are part of a let us brand

[1:21:58] companies which is let us

[1:22:00] clean, cater entertain and

[1:22:01] build their inc And so that is

[1:22:01] the people and anybody who

[1:22:06] wants to be a part of that

[1:22:06] the people that we are an

[1:22:07] organization the city of San

[1:22:10] Diego is a great city.

[1:22:11] I can take us from number eight

[1:22:13] economy least minimum to number

[1:22:14] three in the world and that's

[1:22:14] just based off what I see and

[1:22:15] allocate from people, places

[1:22:19] and things And there is whimsy

[1:22:23] here So like this DR. Shabazz

[1:22:24] at City College he's a part of

[1:22:25] maybe being a apprenticeship

[1:22:29] for these services that is a

[1:22:29] catering or janitorial

[1:22:30] construction and even

[1:22:34] the entertainment sector EMTs,

[1:22:34] they do a great job.

[1:22:35] Father Joe's thing dignity,

[1:22:38] anthropology and these are in a

[1:22:43] circle of services I say places

[1:22:44] that I work with personally

[1:22:45] the homeless outreach I want to

[1:22:45] make a homeless outreach

[1:22:48] advisory board that might

[1:22:49] include some homeless or people

[1:22:49] that represent that I'm a voice

[1:22:54] of the city and each one of you

[1:22:55] guys even a city attorney from

[1:22:55] the da's attorney to the public

[1:22:59] defender I have had personal

[1:23:00] dealings with even

[1:23:00] the community Brittney

[1:23:01] Daniels's office where I shake

[1:23:04] hands and make thank you for

[1:23:04] that.

[1:23:05] And so that's what I'm working

[1:23:06] on Anybody wants to understand.

[1:23:07] And so you and your team has

[1:23:09] concluded But thank you for

[1:23:09] that concluding comment.

[1:23:11] Steven Gerrard I understand you

[1:23:16] have something for

[1:23:17] the something to put up so we

[1:23:22] will put that up right now.

[1:23:22] >> Thank you and you'll have

[1:23:23] two minutes.

[1:23:26] Please proceed.

[1:23:27] >> San Diego City Council and

[1:23:31] Citizens Steven Gerrard said

[1:23:32] Love Ski I'd like to open since

[1:23:36] we're celebrating 250 years and

[1:23:37] we're a Judeo Christian nation

[1:23:40] I like to open up with just a

[1:23:41] random holy Bible.

[1:23:45] Starting with Hebrews nine Then

[1:23:45] verily the first covenant had

[1:23:49] also ordinances of divine

[1:23:54] service and a worldly sanctuary

[1:23:55] for there was a tabernacle made

[1:23:55] the first wherein was

[1:24:00] the candlestick and the table

[1:24:00] and the show Bread which is

[1:24:05] called the Sanctuary And after

[1:24:05] the second will the tabernacle

[1:24:06] which is called the holiest of

[1:24:10] all which had the Golden censor

[1:24:11] and the Ark of the Covenant

[1:24:14] overlaid.

[1:24:15] Please read all of Hebrews nine

[1:24:19] I smile when you embrace

[1:24:20] the Holy Bible and read it

[1:24:25] daily as I try to do myself by

[1:24:25] frown If you don't I encourage

[1:24:26] that.

[1:24:30] Looking at the slide here, San

[1:24:30] Diego will be hosting another

[1:24:35] wonderful Walk for life coming

[1:24:35] JANUARY 23rd.

[1:24:40] I encourage you to put that on

[1:24:46] your schedule and attended next

[1:24:47] weekend Mission San Diego

[1:24:51] The Chocolate Festival

[1:24:52] The Bells will be occurring

[1:24:53] Also I encourage you to attend

[1:24:56] that I often play at

[1:24:56] the Blessing of the Animals

[1:24:57] events with my guitar.

[1:25:02] I continue to amplify new U.S.

[1:25:07] Preborn personhood cities as a

[1:25:08] pro-life speaker it's something

[1:25:08] that we can do now I hope you

[1:25:12] are already reading

[1:25:13] the correspondence that has

[1:25:13] been placed before you.

[1:25:18] Thank you for permitting me to

[1:25:18] speak and remember let

[1:25:19] the beating heart show you

[1:25:23] There is life in the.

[1:25:24] >> GOD bless you all.

[1:25:24] Thank you.

[1:25:25] Next is Taylor Partridge.

[1:25:28] If you can please come forward.

[1:25:34] >> Taylor, are you here?

[1:25:35] Taylor Partridge Boy once

[1:25:35] Right.

[1:25:38] Maximilian Schmidt, if you can

[1:25:43] please come forward.

[1:25:44] >> Hi.

[1:25:48] I just wanted to give a big

[1:25:49] thank you to Councilmember

[1:25:54] Campbell for saying that

[1:25:54] the e-bike the e-bikes are a

[1:26:00] crisis because they are And I

[1:26:01] think that we need to be super

[1:26:05] aggressive about a full out ban

[1:26:10] on electric scooters, bicycles

[1:26:15] and on skateboards completely

[1:26:16] ban them on their way to

[1:26:17] dangerous in my opinion they

[1:26:22] actually ruin the sidewalks

[1:26:22] completely.

[1:26:23] The sidewalks don't even feel

[1:26:27] safe to walk down And at all I

[1:26:28] could ban everything electric.

[1:26:32] We could be the first city on

[1:26:33] the West Coast to do it And I

[1:26:33] think if we took a vote of

[1:26:34] everyone San Diego everyone

[1:26:38] would support that And San

[1:26:39] Diego could be like big heroes

[1:26:43] and they could be said to be

[1:26:44] the first city to do in the us

[1:26:45] And I think we need to be

[1:26:49] supergrass about a full out ban

[1:26:50] on everything electric because

[1:26:51] Oh yeah I'd like for

[1:26:51] Councilmember Campbell saying

[1:26:54] it's also a helmet issue or

[1:26:55] maybe like teens don't want to

[1:26:56] wear helmets They go on

[1:27:00] the bike path where it's safer

[1:27:01] ,where a lot of skilled people

[1:27:02] live like the one wheeled

[1:27:02] skateboards.

[1:27:03] They'll wear helmets, they'll

[1:27:03] go on the road.

[1:27:06] So if you wanted to do

[1:27:07] something electric you have to

[1:27:08] ride in the road of a helmet

[1:27:08] and in the sidewalks.

[1:27:09] Nothing electric is allowed on

[1:27:12] the sidewalks Pretty basic.

[1:27:12] And then I also want to talk

[1:27:13] about Freemasons.

[1:27:14] There's a song we can help

[1:27:17] people across the planet but in

[1:27:17] every downtown urban center in

[1:27:23] the world there's someone who's

[1:27:23] lonely and isolated and going

[1:27:24] crazy because they can't grasp

[1:27:25] or wrap their mind around

[1:27:29] the fact that someone can read

[1:27:30] your mind and they're becoming

[1:27:30] mentally ill.

[1:27:31] >> And if we send a public

[1:27:35] service announcement across

[1:27:36] the world to let these people

[1:27:36] know that people can read your

[1:27:37] mind on badging and conquer

[1:27:41] rituals and Masonic lodges

[1:27:42] you're not crazy.

[1:27:43] >> In fact that person is evil

[1:27:43] trying to make you crazy.

[1:27:45] We can actually save lives

[1:27:46] allegedly.

[1:27:47] >> If you can please come

[1:28:03] forward first.

[1:28:03] Timothy 610 The love of money

[1:28:09] is the root of all evil And

[1:28:09] it's interesting to hear you

[1:28:14] guys talk about that being your

[1:28:15] favorite item about the funding

[1:28:20] And you know, talking about

[1:28:21] when people's lives are at

[1:28:21] stake.

[1:28:22] >> These are people's lives.

[1:28:26] You know, talk about money

[1:28:27] being at risk efforts to

[1:28:27] maintain grants, ongoing

[1:28:33] funding you know, do you want

[1:28:34] the money or not?

[1:28:34] And it's like you're using

[1:28:39] these people's lives And it's

[1:28:40] so sad because I wish you cared

[1:28:41] about those people just as much

[1:28:45] as you care about this money

[1:28:46] that you get because like

[1:28:46] you're talking about you walk

[1:28:51] over and you don't like how I

[1:28:52] talk to you about it.

[1:28:53] Well, I like watching that

[1:28:57] really hard.

[1:28:58] It's really hard to listen to

[1:28:59] you guys talk like this when I

[1:29:02] come to you year after year and

[1:29:03] tell you about people dying at

[1:29:09] Tent City and then you use them

[1:29:10] as a means to get money and

[1:29:19] it's like how sad is that?

[1:29:20] A man was strangled yesterday

[1:29:25] at Tent City and he's part of

[1:29:26] the lawsuit and people have

[1:29:27] been dying there from fentanyl

[1:29:32] overdoses that don't do

[1:29:32] fentanyl And I'm just like what

[1:29:37] the you guys?

[1:29:38] >> You're the ones that are

[1:29:43] supposed to like you have this

[1:29:44] opportunity to do something.

[1:29:49] >> You have the power to do it

[1:29:49] .

[1:29:50] Why do you just walk over them?

[1:29:55] I asked them if they've gotten

[1:29:56] help and they say no and they

[1:29:57] want it And it's like you have

[1:29:58] all these people that are set

[1:30:02] to lose housing and they are

[1:30:03] about to They could die if you

[1:30:03] send them to Tent City.

[1:30:04] >> Thank you for that

[1:30:09] Concluding comments are

[1:30:10] the five minute timer.

[1:30:10] We currently have 11 people in

[1:30:11] the queue starting with Laurie

[1:30:13] on if you can please email.

[1:30:14] Thank you.

[1:30:14] Good morning and thank you for

[1:30:15] instituting the way for people

[1:30:20] to submit documents and other

[1:30:21] things before the comment I

[1:30:21] want to address collapsing

[1:30:26] infrastructure and climate

[1:30:27] change in San Diego and also

[1:30:28] the cost of change orders that

[1:30:32] are red increasing that

[1:30:33] the cost for these projects by

[1:30:33] hundreds of billions of dollars

[1:30:39] in coastal areas and by start

[1:30:43] getting over bronchitis there's

[1:30:44] been a 35% increase in costs

[1:30:45] due to higher ground water

[1:30:45] levels around a pure water pump

[1:30:49] station along the river.

[1:30:50] This overall is $1 billion plus

[1:30:50] project which means hundreds of

[1:30:54] millions of dollars in change

[1:30:55] orders for specifically that

[1:30:59] one pump station along Friars

[1:31:00] Road very close to where you're

[1:31:01] proposing to build thousands of

[1:31:06] new homes in the Midway Project

[1:31:06] what I call the Midway Sinking

[1:31:07] project across the river

[1:31:11] adjacent to the San Diego River

[1:31:12] until and unless you

[1:31:12] investigate changes in

[1:31:13] groundwater in these

[1:31:13] communities, the citizens will

[1:31:18] continue to put more taxpayer

[1:31:18] money into addressing these

[1:31:19] change orders and they will

[1:31:23] also have to pay for emergency

[1:31:24] repairs.

[1:31:25] And one company in particular

[1:31:25] has received almost $100

[1:31:25] million.

[1:31:30] This is the Katz Construction.

[1:31:30] They have received these

[1:31:31] emergency change orders close

[1:31:35] to $100 million now because

[1:31:36] the city is simply not

[1:31:36] evaluating the risk of these

[1:31:42] coastal communities.

[1:31:42] High tides are routinely

[1:31:43] flooding Mission Bay and very

[1:31:44] soon we will have El Nino

[1:31:48] driven storms pushing those

[1:31:49] tides even more into

[1:31:49] the community.

[1:31:50] These the floodwaters are

[1:31:54] reaching the streets,

[1:31:55] the alleyways and soon

[1:31:56] the homes in this beach and any

[1:31:59] high tide you simply go down to

[1:32:00] those areas and you see

[1:32:01] the tides are going up through

[1:32:06] the storm drains that are

[1:32:06] supposed to drain water away

[1:32:07] from the land.

[1:32:07] Sea level is changing.

[1:32:12] Groundwater is changing.

[1:32:13] Our communities are sinking.

[1:32:13] Please investigate these

[1:32:14] changes before you spend more

[1:32:18] money on change orders.

[1:32:19] >> Thank you.

[1:32:19] Next is Becky Rapp.

[1:32:24] If you can please unmute.

[1:32:24] >> Good morning.

[1:32:30] My name is Becky Rapp and today

[1:32:30] I'd like to share data provided

[1:32:31] in San Diego County Cannabis

[1:32:32] Public Health Initiative

[1:32:32] Report.

[1:32:37] The data in the 2025 report

[1:32:37] makes one thing very clear.

[1:32:38] We're seeing increases in

[1:32:42] cannabis related emergency

[1:32:43] department visits, poison

[1:32:44] control calls, highly potent

[1:32:44] products, synthetic

[1:32:48] cannabinoids and new forms of

[1:32:49] access that simply did not

[1:32:50] exist a few years ago.

[1:32:54] Perhaps the most concerning is

[1:32:55] that many young people still

[1:32:55] don't recognize the risks.

[1:32:56] A significant percentage of

[1:33:01] students report believing that

[1:33:02] daily marijuana use is not

[1:33:02] harmful.

[1:33:03] While justice involved youth

[1:33:07] continued to report early

[1:33:07] initiation, frequent use and

[1:33:12] easy easy access that tells us

[1:33:13] education and prevention

[1:33:14] efforts are still desperately

[1:33:14] needed.

[1:33:18] We also need to be honest about

[1:33:19] what we're talking about today.

[1:33:20] This is not the marijuana many

[1:33:20] people remember from decades

[1:33:21] ago.

[1:33:25] This is not simply a plant

[1:33:25] growing in a pot on our

[1:33:26] balcony.

[1:33:26] Today's cannabis includes

[1:33:31] highly concentrated thc

[1:33:31] products, vapes edibles and

[1:33:32] other products designed to

[1:33:33] deliver much stronger doses

[1:33:37] than previous generations

[1:33:37] experienced.

[1:33:38] The potency and accessibility

[1:33:38] of these products have changed

[1:33:43] and our prevention efforts must

[1:33:44] change with them.

[1:33:44] We also cannot ignore

[1:33:45] the mental health impacts on

[1:33:46] young people.

[1:33:49] Adolescence is a critical

[1:33:50] period of brain development.

[1:33:51] And research continues to show

[1:33:51] that early and frequent

[1:33:56] marijuana use can affect

[1:33:56] attention, memory, learning,

[1:33:57] motivation and emotional

[1:33:58] well-being especially those who

[1:34:01] are already vulnerable.

[1:34:02] It can increase the risk of

[1:34:03] anxiety, depression, psychosis

[1:34:08] and other serious mental health

[1:34:08] challenges.

[1:34:09] At a time when youth mental

[1:34:09] health concerns are already at

[1:34:14] historic levels, we must take

[1:34:14] every opportunity to educate

[1:34:15] and protect our children.

[1:34:19] The data has been provided

[1:34:20] local current data impacting

[1:34:21] our communities and

[1:34:21] neighborhoods.

[1:34:26] We have an opportunity and a

[1:34:26] responsibility to act before

[1:34:27] these problems become even more

[1:34:31] difficult.

[1:34:32] Concluded Kathleen Lippert, if

[1:34:37] you can please and you.

[1:34:37] >> Thank you.

[1:34:38] Good morning Council.

[1:34:43] As a prevention policy advocate

[1:34:44] getting elected to support

[1:34:44] prevention strategies its

[1:34:49] challenges unnecessarily

[1:34:50] challenging with local

[1:34:50] government officials and

[1:34:51] sometimes with the public

[1:34:55] because their outcomes are not

[1:34:55] immediately seen.

[1:34:56] But no other strategy for

[1:34:57] addressing public health and

[1:35:02] safety challenges works better

[1:35:02] for their efficacy

[1:35:03] sustainability and economics.

[1:35:07] >> Having the failures of harm

[1:35:08] reduction policies and

[1:35:08] ineffective city policies

[1:35:13] influenced by addiction

[1:35:14] industries point out to city

[1:35:14] elected officials they're not

[1:35:19] appreciated.

[1:35:20] That's understandable.

[1:35:20] None of us enjoy being

[1:35:21] criticized But instead of

[1:35:25] ignoring the words of those

[1:35:26] whose heartfelt concerns prompt

[1:35:27] them to be repetitive, please

[1:35:28] consider what they have to say.

[1:35:33] Andre is one of those whose

[1:35:34] passion for the homeless

[1:35:34] motivates her intrepid,

[1:35:38] conscientious undaunted effort

[1:35:39] to shine a light on preventable

[1:35:39] deaths of those who end up in

[1:35:44] homeless shelters encampments,

[1:35:44] tents or on our street.

[1:35:48] Kelly Davis was a similar voice

[1:35:49] who spent three decades to

[1:35:50] prevent those in our prisons

[1:35:50] from dying unnecessarily.

[1:35:55] Although the jails should be

[1:35:56] one of the most controlled

[1:35:57] environments, it remains a

[1:36:01] mystery as to why they are not

[1:36:01] .

[1:36:02] There seems to be no good

[1:36:02] reason why drugs, weapons

[1:36:03] suicides take place in our

[1:36:08] jails and prisons.

[1:36:08] Davis spent three decades

[1:36:09] shining this light and she

[1:36:13] could bring attention to their

[1:36:14] plight.

[1:36:14] In a touching tribute to her

[1:36:15] efforts, the families of those

[1:36:20] whose loved ones passed away in

[1:36:21] jails attended her funeral to

[1:36:26] pay their respects.

[1:36:26] We lost a powerful and

[1:36:27] principled voice on behalf of

[1:36:28] those in prison and we need to

[1:36:33] remind ourselves that voices

[1:36:33] like Kelly and Andre deserve to

[1:36:34] be respected and listened to.

[1:36:39] Unlike many of the politically

[1:36:40] influenced voices we hear

[1:36:41] there, Clinton has concluded My

[1:36:45] apologies but we have nine

[1:36:46] speakers in the queue.

[1:36:46] The five minute timer has

[1:36:47] concluded no additional

[1:36:49] speakers will be taken.

[1:36:50] Madison if you can please

[1:36:55] unmute.

[1:36:56] >> Yes, hi.

[1:36:56] Thank you for the opportunity

[1:36:57] to speak again today.

[1:37:01] I wanted to focus on

[1:37:02] the important mental health

[1:37:03] consequences of drug impairment

[1:37:07] and impact on our young people

[1:37:07] .

[1:37:08] A new ucla Center for Health

[1:37:09] Policy Research study found

[1:37:13] that California adolescents who

[1:37:13] currently use substances

[1:37:14] experience significantly higher

[1:37:15] rates of psychological distress

[1:37:19] and suicidal thoughts or

[1:37:19] attempts than their peers.

[1:37:20] Nearly half of youth who used

[1:37:25] drugs, alcohol and tobacco

[1:37:25] reported serious psychological

[1:37:26] distress.

[1:37:26] Even more concerning

[1:37:31] adolescents who used both

[1:37:32] substances and experienced

[1:37:33] psychological distress were

[1:37:33] nearly six times more likely to

[1:37:38] report suicidal thoughts or

[1:37:39] suicide attempts than those who

[1:37:39] use substances without

[1:37:40] psychological distress.

[1:37:44] >> These findings remind us

[1:37:44] that substance use prevention

[1:37:45] is mental health prevention.

[1:37:50] Every effort we make to delay

[1:37:50] or reduce substance use has

[1:37:51] the potential to improve

[1:37:56] emotional well-being and reduce

[1:37:57] the risk of tragic outcomes.

[1:37:57] I encourage you to prioritize

[1:38:01] evidence based prevention

[1:38:02] programs alongside treatment

[1:38:02] services.

[1:38:03] Prevention is often the most

[1:38:08] effective behavioral health

[1:38:09] investment we can make because

[1:38:09] it keeps young people from ever

[1:38:15] needing more intensive services

[1:38:15] leaders.

[1:38:16] Thank you.

[1:38:16] Thank you, Terry.

[1:38:23] Terry is going to complete any

[1:38:23] .

[1:38:24] >> Good morning San Diego City

[1:38:24] Council.

[1:38:25] My name is Terrence Gilliam, a

[1:38:26] parent of three adult sons and

[1:38:29] a planning board member.

[1:38:30] My planning group had a

[1:38:31] presentation regarding fire

[1:38:34] safety from the county's fire

[1:38:35] Safe Council last week.

[1:38:36] My planning group is concerned

[1:38:36] about tobacco and marijuana

[1:38:42] smoking and vaping on

[1:38:43] the hiking trails on the small

[1:38:43] sidewalks that connect

[1:38:47] the neighborhoods in my area

[1:38:47] marijuana and tobacco products

[1:38:48] are discarded out on the trails

[1:38:49] and the sidewalks creating a

[1:38:53] hazard for fires and legally

[1:38:53] vaping products are considered

[1:38:54] a toxic waste.

[1:38:59] We need much better signage in

[1:39:00] those areas this summer

[1:39:01] indicating that they are that

[1:39:05] they are smoke free.

[1:39:06] I'm hoping the city departments

[1:39:07] that would be responsible for

[1:39:11] this type of signage could do

[1:39:12] so soon and now would be a

[1:39:13] great time to prohibit smoking

[1:39:18] and vaping in all public places

[1:39:19] in our city where our citizens

[1:39:19] live and play.

[1:39:23] The city could signal their

[1:39:24] understanding that the water we

[1:39:24] drink, the land we enjoy and

[1:39:30] especially the air that we

[1:39:31] breathe are all very precious.

[1:39:31] It would be great by bringing

[1:39:36] forward a smoke free and free

[1:39:36] public places ordinance.

[1:39:37] Like many other cities

[1:39:41] throughout our county, this

[1:39:42] would work towards creating a

[1:39:43] smoke free vape free generation

[1:39:47] of young Americans that reject

[1:39:48] reject tobacco marijuana use

[1:39:49] and the physical and health

[1:39:54] mental problems they create.

[1:39:54] Thank you for hearing my

[1:39:55] concerns this morning.

[1:39:55] Thank you.

[1:39:57] Judy Strang if you can please

[1:40:03] on you.

[1:40:03] >> Good morning.

[1:40:08] San Diego City Council.

[1:40:09] Thank you for letting me share

[1:40:10] some personal thoughts here.

[1:40:15] When I heard and I'm not being

[1:40:16] unkind here I hope the idea

[1:40:17] that people grow their

[1:40:22] marijuana in pot I wanted to

[1:40:23] say oh on only because my

[1:40:24] experience is that they are

[1:40:27] definitely using the products

[1:40:28] that they receive either for

[1:40:29] the illegal or legal market

[1:40:33] that are primarily engineering

[1:40:34] products now and our high

[1:40:39] concentrated thc in the circle

[1:40:40] of people that I care about I

[1:40:46] have visited one of them now

[1:40:47] three times as they've been

[1:40:47] hospitalized because of their

[1:40:52] psychotic and mental distress

[1:40:53] because of their marijuana use.

[1:40:59] I have received the phone calls

[1:40:59] from the corner of Bridge

[1:41:00] regarding their contemplation

[1:41:04] about killing themselves and

[1:41:05] got those phone calls every

[1:41:06] single day for several months

[1:41:11] until that person realized that

[1:41:11] 5% of those who survived and

[1:41:17] that scared them enough to let

[1:41:17] go of that idea And I made

[1:41:18] plans to travel when his he

[1:41:23] disappeared in his friends

[1:41:23] called me and I went to

[1:41:24] the cliff side where his truck

[1:41:28] was parked back.

[1:41:29] It didn't work out that badly

[1:41:29] this time I know what marijuana

[1:41:30] use looks like.

[1:41:36] I know what decades of use.

[1:41:36] I know what it looks like in

[1:41:37] the 20 to 30 the police in

[1:41:41] the 50s and it is scary and it

[1:41:42] causes whether it causes

[1:41:42] distress to the person smoking

[1:41:47] Well we'd have to have them

[1:41:48] come in and talk to you But

[1:41:48] I've seen some pretty agitated

[1:41:49] depressed state.

[1:41:52] But let me tell you for those

[1:41:53] of us around them and care them

[1:41:54] and try to protect them, it's a

[1:41:58] horrific experience.

[1:41:59] So if we speak about our

[1:41:59] concerns, I want you to

[1:42:00] understand it's a personal

[1:42:05] issue for many of us.

[1:42:05] >> Thank you.

[1:42:06] Thank you for being open.

[1:42:07] If you can please unmute I

[1:42:10] thank you.

[1:42:10] There was now that we're having

[1:42:15] the roll out of for the new

[1:42:21] public comment time period what

[1:42:22] speakers can do and working in

[1:42:27] groups think that it started.

[1:42:28] I'm interested how if needed

[1:42:33] the city clerk can know how to

[1:42:34] use the 130 time a bit more

[1:42:39] frequently and more flexibly as

[1:42:40] appropriate.

[1:42:40] I offered that yesterday and I

[1:42:44] realized the meeting went on to

[1:42:44] about 6 or 7.

[1:42:45] So you know she actually

[1:42:45] yourselves made a very wise

[1:42:50] decision in how to garner one

[1:42:51] minute for public comment But

[1:42:55] just sometimes some items

[1:42:56] deserve a bit longer time and

[1:43:00] to be flexible and open to

[1:43:00] the 130 time I think you guys

[1:43:01] do that really well and should

[1:43:02] know how to use it a little

[1:43:06] more regularly as needed.

[1:43:07] I thought I'd just mention to

[1:43:08] this time in this new public

[1:43:13] comment age we're entering I

[1:43:13] also want to comment on

[1:43:14] the words of Marie Sodano and I

[1:43:18] think did a really nice job to

[1:43:18] describe that.

[1:43:19] If nothing else we have to go

[1:43:24] with the Midway Rising project.

[1:43:24] We have to be aware of our

[1:43:30] options and choices and so long

[1:43:31] as has made it clear that I

[1:43:32] hope her words become a part of

[1:43:32] the regular conversation and

[1:43:36] how to address the future of

[1:43:36] Midway Rising, I think she's on

[1:43:37] a really important captain How

[1:43:41] to talk about it that needs

[1:43:42] respect and I hope it's just a

[1:43:46] regular part of the future

[1:43:47] conversations and not kept

[1:43:47] hidden and tucked away and not

[1:43:52] talked about And I'm really

[1:43:53] hopeful about the future of

[1:43:58] accountability with with public

[1:43:59] policies, with tech

[1:43:59] accountability.

[1:44:00] We've taken a bit of a break

[1:44:03] over the past few years.

[1:44:04] It's really time that when good

[1:44:05] policies present themselves we

[1:44:05] need to really move forward and

[1:44:10] work towards them on a number

[1:44:11] of issues.

[1:44:11] >> We can be working towards

[1:44:12] peace not war.

[1:44:12] That's a good thing both

[1:44:16] concluded Sorry Francine Maximo

[1:44:17] if you can please unmute.

[1:44:18] >> Good morning Francine Marcel

[1:44:21] Southeastern San Diego resident

[1:44:22] I want to make sure that you

[1:44:23] know how much we appreciate our

[1:44:26] cp commissioners.

[1:44:27] We appreciate the time that

[1:44:27] they spend away from their

[1:44:28] family.

[1:44:32] The extra meetings, the extra

[1:44:33] training But the community is a

[1:44:34] little concerned with 185 k

[1:44:38] that seems a little bit low

[1:44:39] ball for us to get our own

[1:44:39] attorney and so I see us

[1:44:42] because we are all in this

[1:44:43] together And so as a taxpayer

[1:44:44] knowing that you guys have some

[1:44:48] money that MAY not have been

[1:44:49] counted on for 2020 7fy maybe

[1:44:54] somebody can look and see if

[1:44:57] there's some scraps left to up

[1:44:58] the scale from the 185 k for

[1:44:59] independent attorney or

[1:45:04] independent c p r c p p works

[1:45:04] hard.

[1:45:05] They have absolutely got some

[1:45:08] things changed recently.

[1:45:09] The community has begun to

[1:45:10] receive letters again That

[1:45:15] tells you that there was no no

[1:45:20] misconduct for the officers and

[1:45:21] although you MAY not be happy

[1:45:21] with the letter you receive

[1:45:22] you're receiving them Again.

[1:45:26] We are moving towards better

[1:45:26] customer service with internal

[1:45:27] affairs.

[1:45:27] We leave a message and you

[1:45:31] sometimes get a return call

[1:45:32] within the same day And so we

[1:45:33] want to make sure that we

[1:45:37] continue to work in partnership

[1:45:38] But you need to help us get our

[1:45:42] independent arm a little bit

[1:45:42] stronger.

[1:45:43] And so an independent attorney

[1:45:47] to advise our commissioners

[1:45:47] although we do have some

[1:45:48] attorneys on the commission, we

[1:45:52] still need to have that seat

[1:45:53] filled along with a couple of

[1:45:53] them.

[1:45:57] So please consider holding some

[1:45:58] type of hearing added to

[1:45:58] the agenda last minute Like you

[1:46:02] guys do many things that you

[1:46:03] want to and let's get our

[1:46:04] oversight our independent

[1:46:08] oversight really going over

[1:46:08] the summer while you're on

[1:46:12] legislative break there are

[1:46:13] some things that can absolutely

[1:46:14] be done because they are city

[1:46:18] employees that are staffing

[1:46:18] the ctp.

[1:46:19] >> Thank you.

[1:46:19] Thank you.

[1:46:23] Peggy Walker if you can please

[1:46:23] unmute.

[1:46:24] >> Okay.

[1:46:28] Thank you Again to the last

[1:46:29] Social Wellness month a call to

[1:46:32] improve the health and mental

[1:46:33] well-being of our communities

[1:46:34] which is a call of those who

[1:46:38] work for safe marijuana and

[1:46:39] other drug policies to protect

[1:46:43] youth And that effort isn't

[1:46:44] about the marijuana plant by

[1:46:45] the way as I mentioned earlier,

[1:46:48] it's about an industry

[1:46:49] engineering thc content of

[1:46:49] those plants far beyond

[1:46:54] anything natural or about a

[1:46:55] highly potent synthesized

[1:46:59] products designed and packaged

[1:47:00] to attract young people while

[1:47:00] falsely presented as safe or

[1:47:04] even as a medicine with no

[1:47:05] scientific data backup and

[1:47:09] lacking pharmaceutical

[1:47:10] protocols Today highly potent

[1:47:14] products not visual output Prop

[1:47:14] 64 have introduced public

[1:47:18] health risks that local

[1:47:19] enforcement and health care

[1:47:20] infrastructure are proving ill

[1:47:24] equipped to absorb.

[1:47:25] This is demonstrated by item 50

[1:47:29] today regarding uncontrollable

[1:47:30] illegal marijuana delivery

[1:47:33] activities that present

[1:47:34] challenging enforcement issues

[1:47:38] especially regarding deliveries

[1:47:39] to use.

[1:47:40] It's challenged by the public

[1:47:40] health burdens of young

[1:47:44] addiction and increased demand

[1:47:45] for mental support services

[1:47:49] that offset Project to tax

[1:47:50] revenues by searching air

[1:47:54] visits highlighting

[1:47:55] the unanticipated medical costs

[1:47:59] of increased youth access to

[1:47:59] marijuana.

[1:48:00] It's about need for greater

[1:48:04] prevention efforts because

[1:48:04] allowing an industry to mess

[1:48:09] with a kid's mind before he

[1:48:09] even has a chance to comprehend

[1:48:14] the damage pot can do to young

[1:48:14] brains just isn't justified.

[1:48:18] Judging policies by how they

[1:48:19] work for the betterment of

[1:48:23] the community the marijuana

[1:48:24] industry practices currently

[1:48:28] allowed fail the test for use

[1:48:28] safety.

[1:48:29] Thank you Your time has

[1:48:29] concluded.

[1:48:30] Natalie Raskin If you can

[1:48:33] please on mute then we have

[1:48:33] Hector and 8700 or finals

[1:48:37] speakers Please proceed.

[1:48:38] Hi Natalie Raskin here.

[1:48:42] Just a couple of things My I

[1:48:43] want to talk about but I'm

[1:48:43] going to respond to the women

[1:48:46] that have responded to what I

[1:48:47] have said.

[1:48:47] I understand that marijuana is

[1:48:51] more potent.

[1:48:52] I have four children.

[1:48:53] I talk to them about what is

[1:48:56] out there and what is good and

[1:48:57] what is bad and that they have

[1:48:58] consequences when they make

[1:49:01] these choices.

[1:49:01] Some of these people have other

[1:49:02] mental issues that MAY be

[1:49:05] affected by marijuana.

[1:49:06] I understand that.

[1:49:10] But to make it that it's legal

[1:49:11] for everybody is not something

[1:49:11] I think about.

[1:49:15] Mk Ultra is a real thing though

[1:49:16] that was classified.

[1:49:19] Big Pharma is our biggest drug

[1:49:20] producing addictive.

[1:49:25] It's crazy and my whole riginal

[1:49:26] was coming on here and talking

[1:49:29] to the city of San Diego and

[1:49:30] how we're moving forward and

[1:49:31] looking at our future with

[1:49:35] innovation and protect ing

[1:49:35] the people against Big Pharma

[1:49:40] again M.K. Ultra that is real

[1:49:41] stuff and they do manipulate

[1:49:41] minds and it is out there and

[1:49:45] you can do the research Are we

[1:49:45] moving forward?

[1:49:49] I have four children and I want

[1:49:50] them to be contributing members

[1:49:50] to society.

[1:49:53] We need to start looking at

[1:49:54] innovation.

[1:49:55] I don't know how many of you on

[1:49:58] the dias are researching how

[1:49:59] A.I. Is moving and how all

[1:50:03] these technologies are moving

[1:50:03] forward.

[1:50:04] I think we need to start being

[1:50:07] more innovative.

[1:50:08] I just produced a book which

[1:50:11] received our first robot a

[1:50:12] teacher in the city of San

[1:50:16] Diego That is huge.

[1:50:17] I wrote a book on how to

[1:50:21] introduce A.I. To your teens.

[1:50:22] We need to start thinking in

[1:50:26] this fashion so that we are not

[1:50:27] at the end of the day and New

[1:50:31] World Order.

[1:50:31] That is serious to me and I

[1:50:32] hope it's serious to everyone

[1:50:36] on the dias especially young

[1:50:36] children.

[1:50:37] >> Thank you Hector.

[1:50:41] If you can please unmute I Hi

[1:50:41] guys.

[1:50:45] I want to remind you guys it's

[1:50:45] JULY and it's so Wide History

[1:50:50] Month and I was just thinking

[1:50:50] about I grew up in San Diego in

[1:50:53] the 50s 60s and 70s and

[1:50:54] the white history at that time

[1:50:58] San Diego was great man All

[1:50:59] the white guys are running

[1:51:03] the show mainly guys some white

[1:51:04] women, a couple of black guys

[1:51:05] out there.

[1:51:08] Archie Moore's house We used to

[1:51:12] drive over his freeway entrance

[1:51:13] going down to 32nd Street in

[1:51:14] the Navy.

[1:51:14] My parents were both in

[1:51:18] the Navy and he had a he

[1:51:19] probably still got it.

[1:51:23] He has a boxing glove for a

[1:51:24] swimming pool And Archie more

[1:51:27] or less famous the mongoose

[1:51:28] black guy in San Diego My dad

[1:51:29] would point them out to me and

[1:51:31] stuff is pretty cool but I

[1:51:32] don't remember it being that

[1:51:36] super racist like the one lady

[1:51:36] talking about racist racist

[1:51:39] racist kind of thing playing

[1:51:40] the race card all the time and

[1:51:45] not getting jobs or when I was

[1:51:46] growing up it was I don't think

[1:51:46] it was like that We had black

[1:51:50] guys in our neighborhood,

[1:51:50] Mexican kids, Jewish guys.

[1:51:55] It was like you know, there was

[1:51:55] nobody stealing stuff from

[1:51:56] the store.

[1:52:00] There was no guy getting shot.

[1:52:01] You'd have a fistfight with a

[1:52:04] kid It matter what color he was

[1:52:05] ,it wasn't Nobody was pulling

[1:52:05] out a knife.

[1:52:09] You can take the bus.

[1:52:10] Other neighbors could you kick

[1:52:13] your if you got out of line?

[1:52:14] The neighbor could tell your

[1:52:14] parents and they'd believe

[1:52:18] the neighbor.

[1:52:19] They wouldn't believe the kid

[1:52:19] who was lying.

[1:52:23] So it was a great man Growing

[1:52:24] up in San Diego was cheap.

[1:52:27] I had a 69 Camaro in high

[1:52:31] school on this set in 74 like

[1:52:32] $2,200 And I worked and I made

[1:52:36] the money myself.

[1:52:37] Man Bill is a nice grown up

[1:52:38] here man but I think put

[1:52:41] playing the race card only once

[1:52:42] a month play the race card

[1:52:45] because thank you.

[1:52:46] >> Our final speaker is 8700 If

[1:52:50] you can please unmute press

[1:52:50] star six.

[1:52:55] There you go Joy Joy Sonata

[1:53:04] Audra thank you for your tears

[1:53:04] .

[1:53:09] Tears are the sweetness Our

[1:53:14] voice they speak 10,000 words I

[1:53:19] love you think I'm saying this

[1:53:20] again because it's my big

[1:53:23] message.

[1:53:28] Thank you Audra for your tears

[1:53:28] .

[1:53:29] Tears are the sweetness of our

[1:53:33] voice.

[1:53:37] They speak 10,000 words.

[1:53:37] I love you, Audra.

[1:53:41] Now I want to tell you

[1:53:42] something beautiful.

[1:53:42] I feel this happening at city

[1:53:46] council and PRESIDENT LaCava

[1:53:47] started it.

[1:53:47] He started connecting with

[1:53:51] the public and I noticed it

[1:53:51] right on.

[1:53:56] I'm very aware I had to be a

[1:54:00] massage therapist and I noticed

[1:54:01] that council member DR.

[1:54:05] Campbell did it at her

[1:54:06] community a neighborhood

[1:54:09] services meeting last time she

[1:54:10] got she answered a question

[1:54:11] that was critical to be

[1:54:15] answered from a public and a

[1:54:15] police officer who had

[1:54:19] presented offered me a

[1:54:20] suggestion a how as to how I

[1:54:25] could be part of the patrol

[1:54:25] the senior patrol even though I

[1:54:26] can't drive anymore I'm not

[1:54:30] allowed I feel this And

[1:54:34] Campbell also addressed a

[1:54:34] comment that Andre said I

[1:54:35] believe but I feel this

[1:54:39] beautiful thing that is present

[1:54:40] and I want to encourage each

[1:54:44] and every one of you to fan

[1:54:45] the flames.

[1:54:49] It's so beautiful.

[1:54:49] It's tears.

[1:54:55] It's personal stories of that

[1:54:56] beautiful woman that spoke on

[1:54:57] the drug issue, the person

[1:54:59] personal part of it Your time

[1:54:59] has concluded.

[1:55:00] >> Thank you very much for

[1:55:01] the comments for non agenda

[1:55:04] public comment has concluded.

[1:55:04] >> All right thank you City

[1:55:09] clerk and terms of connecting

[1:55:10] with the public respectfully

[1:55:10] the job opening for

[1:55:13] the commission on Police

[1:55:14] Practices General counsel is

[1:55:17] listed at 185 to 210,000 So you

[1:55:18] don't want anybody to be scared

[1:55:20] off of the 185.

[1:55:21] So with that we will now

[1:55:25] adjourn for the noon recess and

[1:55:26] reconvene in open session at 2

[1:57:42] you And

[1:59:46] I

[2:01:42] enjoyed

[2:02:17] that

[2:03:52] And

[2:03:52] All right

[2:03:58] good afternoon.

[2:03:58] I will now reconvene the City

[2:03:59] Council meeting of Tuesday JULY

[2:04:02] 7th, 2026.

[2:04:03] Clerk Please call the roll.

[2:04:03] Thank you.

[2:04:04] Council PRESIDENT Council

[2:04:09] member Campbell here Council

[2:04:10] Member Whitburn here Council

[2:04:10] Member Foster here Council

[2:04:15] Member Von Wilbur Council

[2:04:16] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee You're

[2:04:16] Council Member Campos You're

[2:04:17] Council Member.

[2:04:22] Moreno Council member Eli

[2:04:23] Rivera and Council PRESIDENT

[2:04:23] LaCava.

[2:04:24] Also attending the meeting are

[2:04:26] Assistant City Attorney Leslie

[2:04:27] Fitzgerald, independent budget

[2:04:28] analyst Charles Mollica and

[2:04:33] myself your city clerk Diana

[2:04:33] Fuentes.

[2:04:34] >> Thank you.

[2:04:34] Council PRESIDENT.

[2:04:35] All right.

[2:04:35] Thank you.

[2:04:38] City Clerk Court is now present

[2:04:39] when we have a meeting to

[2:04:39] decide when we have folks that

[2:04:43] MAY be here for the first or

[2:04:44] maybe the only time they ever

[2:04:44] show up in council chambers.

[2:04:45] >> I like to provide a gentle

[2:04:49] reminder of how we conduct

[2:04:50] business in city council.

[2:04:51] I know a city clerk gave some

[2:04:54] suggestions already.

[2:04:55] Before we start today's meeting

[2:04:56] I want to remind everyone about

[2:04:56] the city's practices and

[2:05:01] procedures for public comment

[2:05:01] At city council meetings

[2:05:02] The city welcomes public

[2:05:02] participation at city council

[2:05:06] meetings.

[2:05:07] Speakers MAY address

[2:05:07] the Council during public

[2:05:08] comment also in connection with

[2:05:09] a specific line of business on

[2:05:12] the agenda.

[2:05:13] However, the city must make

[2:05:13] sure that no one person or

[2:05:14] group of people disrupt

[2:05:14] the meeting a way that

[2:05:15] prohibits other speakers from

[2:05:18] expressing their opinions and

[2:05:19] ideas.

[2:05:19] So to make sure that everyone

[2:05:20] has an opportunity to address

[2:05:25] the Council will alert an

[2:05:25] individual or individuals if I

[2:05:26] think their conduct becomes

[2:05:27] disruptive with the corruption

[2:05:32] continues I will rule

[2:05:32] the individual out of order and

[2:05:33] if the disruption continues

[2:05:34] further I will declare a recess

[2:05:37] all week of the restore order.

[2:05:37] At that point I will direct

[2:05:38] the individual to leave

[2:05:39] the room and if the individual

[2:05:39] refuses police will escort

[2:05:40] the individual out of

[2:05:42] the building.

[2:05:43] Now if we have to repeat this

[2:05:44] process of warning and

[2:05:45] recessing the meeting which we

[2:05:48] will not because you're all

[2:05:48] good people out there, all

[2:05:49] members of the public will be

[2:05:50] excluded from this council

[2:05:54] chambers credentialed media

[2:05:54] will be allowed to remain.

[2:05:55] Once again we have these

[2:05:56] practices and procedures to

[2:05:56] protect the rights of other

[2:06:00] speakers who wish to addressed

[2:06:00] the Council to allow

[2:06:01] the Council to conduct

[2:06:01] the public's business and to

[2:06:06] repeat the advice Given by our

[2:06:07] City Clerk.

[2:06:07] If you agree with someone

[2:06:08] saying thumbs up it's a very,

[2:06:11] very strong visual from up here

[2:06:12] And if you disagree thumbs down

[2:06:13] at the very strong visual as

[2:06:18] well.

[2:06:19] Although I see one sign here if

[2:06:19] you have a sign please extend

[2:06:20] the courtesy to people sitting

[2:06:24] behind you who MAY want to see

[2:06:24] our smiling faces during

[2:06:25] the course of chambers and

[2:06:30] don't restrict They'll find

[2:06:31] the vision I think for also for

[2:06:31] public safety there.

[2:06:32] So MAY I ask you to take that

[2:06:33] fine down If you want to go in

[2:06:35] the back and flash it and

[2:06:36] showed up you certainly are

[2:06:36] more than welcome to do that.

[2:06:41] So with that.

[2:06:42] >> Clerk please introduce item

[2:06:42] 331.

[2:06:43] Thank you.

[2:06:46] Council PRESIDENT Item 331 is

[2:06:46] the Appeal of Planning

[2:06:47] Commission process for decision

[2:06:52] of the Emerald Hills Project a

[2:06:53] 5702 old memory Lane project

[2:06:57] number p rj Dash 1107 880 This

[2:06:58] item is not subject to

[2:07:03] the mayor's veto.

[2:07:04] We do have several organized

[2:07:04] presentations on this item but

[2:07:09] all of them are here in person.

[2:07:09] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All

[2:07:10] right staff I see the sense

[2:07:14] you're out there all by

[2:07:15] yourself so please introduce

[2:07:15] yourself for the record and let

[2:07:16] us know how much time you need.

[2:07:21] Thank you.

[2:07:22] Council PRESIDENT LaCava Good

[2:07:22] afternoon esteemed Council

[2:07:23] PRESIDENT Carver and council

[2:07:23] members.

[2:07:26] My name is Martine Mendez.

[2:07:27] I am the Development Project

[2:07:28] Manager with Development

[2:07:28] Services and I will be

[2:07:32] presenting the Project Appeal

[2:07:33] for the Emerald Hills Project

[2:07:33] today.

[2:07:34] Before we move forward I would

[2:07:38] like to read into the record

[2:07:39] that prior to today's City

[2:07:40] Council hearing staff received

[2:07:44] a traffic analysis report for

[2:07:44] an all way stop analysis at

[2:07:45] the proposed intersection at

[2:07:45] 16th Street.

[2:07:49] That report has been

[2:07:50] distributed to the council

[2:07:50] members and copies are made

[2:07:51] available to the general

[2:07:51] public.

[2:07:55] Also I'd like to point out that

[2:07:56] the analysis was voluntarily

[2:07:57] provided, prepared and provided

[2:08:01] by the applicant in response to

[2:08:01] a comment raised during

[2:08:07] the Planning Commission hearing

[2:08:07] .

[2:08:08] And how much time do you think

[2:08:09] I will need?

[2:08:11] Approximately 30 minutes.

[2:08:12] >> Okay.

[2:08:12] The project just to give you

[2:08:18] some background with

[2:08:18] the project location

[2:08:19] the project is located at 5702

[2:08:23] old memory lane and in Council

[2:08:24] neighborhoods the zoned zoning

[2:08:28] designation for the site is rs

[2:08:29] one dash to residential single

[2:08:33] unit and the parcel size is

[2:08:34] 31.18 acres.

[2:08:34] The approvals for this project

[2:08:38] include a was intended about a

[2:08:39] site development permit for

[2:08:40] the subdivision of land

[2:08:44] containing an environmental

[2:08:45] sensitive lands and for

[2:08:46] encroachments within the public

[2:08:46] right of way a neighborhood

[2:08:51] development permit and a

[2:08:51] neighborhood use permit for a

[2:08:52] neighborhood identification

[2:08:57] sign.

[2:09:01] Okay This slide shows the 123

[2:09:02] residential lots that are being

[2:09:05] proposed.

[2:09:06] 110 of those units would be

[2:09:07] market rate units and 13 would

[2:09:07] be affordable rate units.

[2:09:12] The site also includes seven

[2:09:13] private open space lots four

[2:09:13] pocket parks, three stormwater

[2:09:21] basins and open space areas.

[2:09:21] The project as you can see on

[2:09:27] the map is located south of

[2:09:28] Highway 94 east of Interstate

[2:09:28] 85 and then southeast of

[2:09:33] the existing Emerald Hills

[2:09:33] neighborhood park within

[2:09:34] the Encanto neighborhoods

[2:09:39] Community planning area.

[2:09:40] >> This aerial photograph shows

[2:09:40] the aerial view of the project

[2:09:44] site as it exist today.

[2:09:51] The community plan land use or

[2:09:52] the community plan for

[2:09:52] the project site designates a

[2:09:57] site for residential very low

[2:09:57] land uses at zero two for

[2:09:58] dwelling units per acre.

[2:10:03] This land use designation

[2:10:04] allows 125 dwelling units and

[2:10:04] the existing zoning for

[2:10:05] the project site As previously

[2:10:09] mentioned as one two.

[2:10:13] And so just for clarification

[2:10:13] the 31.8 acre site multiplied

[2:10:18] by the 41 units per acre equals

[2:10:22] 124 and 72 where the project is

[2:10:23] proposed 123.9 units.

[2:10:27] The project is utilizing

[2:10:28] footnote seven This project was

[2:10:32] incomplete on DECEMBER 6th,

[2:10:32] 2023.

[2:10:33] The footnote seven was repealed

[2:10:38] by the City Council on APRIL

[2:10:38] 24th 2025.

[2:10:39] This project went before

[2:10:42] Planning Commission on NOVEMBER

[2:10:43] 20th, 2025 and we are here

[2:10:44] today to hear the appeal

[2:10:48] hearing JULY 7th 2026.

[2:10:54] The project currently has

[2:10:54] vested rights to continue to

[2:11:00] rely upon Footnote seven This

[2:11:01] is a proposed site plan again

[2:11:05] identifying the 23 residential

[2:11:06] building units and the common

[2:11:07] space areas including the parks

[2:11:11] All the common space areas will

[2:11:12] be maintained by the homeowners

[2:11:12] association.

[2:11:16] The project also includes a

[2:11:17] five foot wide trail within

[2:11:22] private property adjacent to

[2:11:22] the 16th Street right away and

[2:11:23] then as part of the 16th Street

[2:11:27] right away improvements to

[2:11:27] the project is proposing

[2:11:28] the replacement of sidewalks

[2:11:31] and providing additional

[2:11:37] landscaping.

[2:11:38] >> Okay.

[2:11:43] This project is requesting

[2:11:44] incentives and waivers.

[2:11:44] The incentive is to modify

[2:11:49] the street sites site and then

[2:11:50] waivers to modify the lot

[2:11:54] street frontage lot with lot

[2:11:54] with four corner lots lot depth

[2:12:00] and driveway curb openings.

[2:12:00] This project went before

[2:12:01] the Planning Commission on

[2:12:02] NOVEMBER 20th, 2025 and was

[2:12:06] approved with modifications on

[2:12:06] DECEMBER 1st, 2025.

[2:12:12] The choice Valley and Canton

[2:12:13] Neighborhoods Community

[2:12:13] Planning Group appealed to

[2:12:14] the Planning Commission's

[2:12:18] decision based on the following

[2:12:18] grounds factual error conflict

[2:12:22] with other matters findings not

[2:12:23] supporting new information and

[2:12:30] citywide significance.

[2:12:30] >> I would like to identify

[2:12:31] that in accordance with

[2:12:36] the central municipal Chapter

[2:12:36] 11 Article two Division three

[2:12:37] All notices for the project

[2:12:40] were distributed via United

[2:12:41] States Postal Service to all

[2:12:42] addresses within 300ft of

[2:12:42] the boundary of the project

[2:12:43] site including owners and

[2:12:47] occupants.

[2:12:47] It was also circulated to

[2:12:48] the officially recognized

[2:12:49] Community planning group and

[2:12:49] the applicant.

[2:12:53] The notice of application was

[2:12:53] distributed on MARCH 7th, 2024

[2:12:54] which identified that there

[2:12:59] would be a decision at a public

[2:12:59] hearing to approve or deny

[2:13:00] the project and identify that

[2:13:01] the project was undergoing

[2:13:04] environmental review.

[2:13:05] The notice of the application

[2:13:05] was also posted on the project

[2:13:06] site as a request as required

[2:13:10] by the municipal Code and

[2:13:10] verification of posting was

[2:13:11] submitted by the applicant to

[2:13:12] Development services on

[2:13:16] NOVEMBER six, 2025.

[2:13:16] The Planning Commission notice

[2:13:17] a public hearing for

[2:13:20] the NOVEMBER 20th, 2025 hearing

[2:13:20] was distributed to parties

[2:13:21] previously mentioned and

[2:13:24] interested parties who have

[2:13:25] requested noticing for

[2:13:26] the project That was over 200

[2:13:30] recipients and the notice was

[2:13:31] also published in San Diego.

[2:13:32] Transcript.

[2:13:36] San Diego Daily Transcript

[2:13:37] Staff visited the project site

[2:13:38] prior to the hearing to confirm

[2:13:38] the notice of application Post

[2:13:42] were still present on the site

[2:13:43] and the applicant also posted

[2:13:44] the Planning Commission notice

[2:13:44] of public hearing at

[2:13:48] the project site as a courtesy.

[2:13:48] The notice to the City Council

[2:13:49] appearing for today's hearing

[2:13:52] was distributed on JUNE 22nd

[2:13:53] 2026.

[2:13:53] The notice was mailed to

[2:13:54] interested parties and those

[2:13:58] previously mentioned.

[2:13:59] The notice was also published

[2:13:59] in the San Diego Daily

[2:14:00] transcript and posted on

[2:14:04] the City Council's website.

[2:14:04] And as of this morning I

[2:14:05] visited the project site to

[2:14:06] confirm that the notice of

[2:14:09] application and the notice of

[2:14:10] today's hearing was present and

[2:14:14] visible at the project site

[2:14:15] with three signs for today's

[2:14:15] hearing.

[2:14:16] Posted on 16th Street and one

[2:14:18] side for the driveway of Old

[2:14:23] Memory Lane.

[2:14:28] Summary of the Appellant's

[2:14:29] issues are as follows.

[2:14:32] The issues related to

[2:14:33] the utilization of Footnote

[2:14:34] seven for the project adequacy

[2:14:34] of the environmental analysis

[2:14:38] deficiencies in public

[2:14:39] facilities for the community

[2:14:40] including Parkland

[2:14:44] Environmental justice concerns

[2:14:44] including concentration of

[2:14:45] density in disadvantaged

[2:14:45] communities.

[2:14:46] Inadequate community

[2:14:49] involvement including

[2:14:50] inadequate notice of

[2:14:50] the project and

[2:14:54] the environmental determination

[2:14:54] .

[2:14:55] >> I will now move forward with

[2:15:00] the appeal issues as they were

[2:15:01] submitted.

[2:15:01] The Polish the first appeal

[2:15:02] issue was in relation to

[2:15:05] factual error.

[2:15:06] Issue number one stated that

[2:15:09] the project far exceeds the 0

[2:15:10] to 4 dwelling units per acre

[2:15:10] density for which the site is

[2:15:11] owned.

[2:15:14] Our response is that

[2:15:14] the project is in conformance

[2:15:15] with the residential very low

[2:15:18] designation from the community

[2:15:19] plan which allows 0 to 4

[2:15:20] dwelling units per acre.

[2:15:20] And as previously mentioned

[2:15:21] that would be in conformance

[2:15:23] with the requirements by

[2:15:28] proposing 123 units.

[2:15:29] The next issue raised was

[2:15:30] the project does not conform to

[2:15:30] the r.

[2:15:33] S1-2 zoning and far exceeds

[2:15:34] the number of lots allowed for

[2:15:37] the zone 67.

[2:15:38] And again the project is

[2:15:43] utilizing footnotes seven for

[2:15:44] the development and would be in

[2:15:48] conformance with the applicable

[2:15:49] regulations of the r.

[2:15:52] S one dash zone through

[2:15:53] the utilization of four.

[2:16:01] Utilization of footnote seven

[2:16:02] The 30 issue as the project

[2:16:02] does not appear to be

[2:16:03] consistent with the Choice

[2:16:06] Valley Community Plan and

[2:16:07] Canton Neighborhoods Community

[2:16:11] Plan Urban Design Policy p u d

[2:16:11] dash 26 states the following.

[2:16:12] Preserve the existing single

[2:16:16] family large lot development in

[2:16:17] areas where topographic

[2:16:17] conditions foster large lots

[2:16:21] and an area is located away

[2:16:22] from mass transit and transit

[2:16:22] corridors.

[2:16:23] Preserve large lot single

[2:16:27] family neighborhoods in order

[2:16:27] to retain the rural atmosphere

[2:16:28] which is characteristic of

[2:16:33] Encanto neighborhoods.

[2:16:34] >> The project site was

[2:16:35] previously developed as a radio

[2:16:38] transmitter facility without a

[2:16:39] residential subdivision.

[2:16:44] Therefore is not subject to

[2:16:45] the preservation of existing

[2:16:45] single family Large lot

[2:16:48] development.

[2:16:49] The proposed subdivision is

[2:16:49] consistent with the adjacent

[2:16:52] developments to the north south

[2:16:53] and west.

[2:16:54] By proposing one and two storey

[2:16:57] single dwelling units having

[2:16:58] minimum lot sizes of 5000ft

[2:16:58] and site design that follows

[2:17:05] the topography of the land.

[2:17:09] >> Issue number four

[2:17:10] the project appeals to be

[2:17:10] neither consistent with

[2:17:14] the community plan nor zoning.

[2:17:14] Residential Land Use Section

[2:17:15] 2.4 of the community plan

[2:17:15] states the following.

[2:17:18] The plan seeks to expand and

[2:17:19] preserve the supply of

[2:17:20] affordable housing through

[2:17:23] construction of new units as

[2:17:23] well as the preservation and

[2:17:24] restoration of older homes.

[2:17:25] The substantial amount of

[2:17:28] vacant and underutilized land

[2:17:29] and access to transit within

[2:17:29] the Encanto neighborhood

[2:17:33] provides an opportunity for

[2:17:34] well-located mixed use infill

[2:17:34] development.

[2:17:37] The community has an extensive

[2:17:38] stock of single family housing

[2:17:39] much of it on large lots.

[2:17:40] Although they have already been

[2:17:43] developed, these large lots

[2:17:44] provide an opportunity for

[2:17:45] infill development through

[2:17:45] the construction of accessory

[2:17:48] dwelling units on the lower

[2:17:49] density residential sites.

[2:17:49] Accessory dwelling units

[2:17:53] increase for housing stock,

[2:17:53] allow for multigenerational

[2:17:54] housing opportunity and can

[2:17:58] provide rental income for lower

[2:17:58] income residents.

[2:17:59] The project was found to be

[2:17:59] consistent with the past

[2:18:03] policies identified on

[2:18:03] the screen which include land

[2:18:08] use, noise mobility, urban

[2:18:08] design and conservation and

[2:18:11] sustainability as well as as

[2:18:12] goals and policies found in

[2:18:16] the general plan.

[2:18:17] >> Furthermore, regarding

[2:18:18] zoning consistency as

[2:18:22] previously described,

[2:18:22] the project is utilizing

[2:18:23] footnote seven and adheres to

[2:18:24] the year one seven regulations

[2:18:26] with allowed incentives and

[2:18:27] waivers for the provision of

[2:18:28] affordable housing in

[2:18:29] accordance with the applicable

[2:18:30] regulations of the Municipal

[2:18:35] Code.

[2:18:36] >> The next appeal issue is

[2:18:38] violation of the 2015

[2:18:39] Neighborhoods Community Plan

[2:18:40] which identified the proposed

[2:18:43] development site as a potential

[2:18:44] community park.

[2:18:44] Despite this designation

[2:18:45] the city made no attempt to

[2:18:48] purchase all or part of

[2:18:49] the land for the intended

[2:18:49] community purpose nor was a

[2:18:50] community plan amendment

[2:18:53] developed to mitigate the loss

[2:18:54] of potential future park space.

[2:18:55] This is not just a loss for

[2:18:58] the choice of communities but

[2:18:59] for all residents of San Diego

[2:19:00] which will forever lose access

[2:19:02] to one of the most remarkable

[2:19:06] vistas in the city.

[2:19:07] The recreation section of

[2:19:08] the community plan identified

[2:19:11] the project site as a potential

[2:19:12] park and clarifies that

[2:19:12] identification of private

[2:19:13] property as a potential park

[2:19:17] site does not preclude

[2:19:17] permitted development per

[2:19:18] the underlying land use or

[2:19:21] zoned.

[2:19:22] The acreage figures represented

[2:19:22] existing and plan sites

[2:19:25] anticipated at the time of

[2:19:26] adoption of the community plan.

[2:19:27] Acreage MAY further MAY be

[2:19:30] further refined over time

[2:19:31] without the need to amend

[2:19:32] the community plan in

[2:19:36] accordance once to

[2:19:37] the statement the community

[2:19:37] with the statement from

[2:19:38] the Community plan a change in

[2:19:41] proposed usable parking acreage

[2:19:41] is does not warrant an

[2:19:41] amendment.

[2:19:44] Table 7-2 identifies a project

[2:19:48] as a major park with 19.8 acres

[2:19:48] allocated for proposed usable

[2:19:52] acreage which would require

[2:19:53] acquisition of privately owned

[2:19:57] of the privately owned parcel.

[2:20:01] >> >> This is a figure 7.2 from

[2:20:02] the community plan that

[2:20:06] identifies again identifies

[2:20:06] the project site as a potential

[2:20:07] park but also has

[2:20:07] the statements that were

[2:20:11] previously read about

[2:20:11] identification of private

[2:20:15] property.

[2:20:16] Just further clarification To

[2:20:17] date the community plan has not

[2:20:17] been updated to remove

[2:20:20] the project site as a potential

[2:20:21] park from the recreation

[2:20:21] section of the community plan.

[2:20:25] Also I think just to address

[2:20:30] some additional questions that

[2:20:31] were brought up prior to

[2:20:31] today's hearing.

[2:20:32] City staff does not have

[2:20:34] records related to to

[2:20:35] contracting the property or

[2:20:36] contacting the property owner

[2:20:36] at that time for possible

[2:20:40] acquisition or purchase of

[2:20:41] the site for purpose of a park.

[2:20:41] And based on the information

[2:20:45] contained in the historic

[2:20:45] Resources report which

[2:20:46] identified property ownership

[2:20:48] dating back to 1956, the site

[2:20:49] has been in private ownership

[2:20:51] since then and the city has not

[2:20:56] had control of the property

[2:21:02] appeal issue six as factual

[2:21:02] error.

[2:21:03] This is a flawed assertion and

[2:21:06] the staff report that the site

[2:21:07] has walkable access to

[2:21:07] the Encanto trolley station and

[2:21:11] Euclid Avenue station which in

[2:21:12] fact the path to those transit

[2:21:16] stops requires traversing a

[2:21:16] very hilly, narrow, unlit and

[2:21:17] dangerous road without

[2:21:21] sidewalks in violation of

[2:21:21] recent revisions to the San

[2:21:22] Diego Municipal Code clarifying

[2:21:23] that the transit must be

[2:21:26] reachable via sidewalks.

[2:21:29] San Diego Municipal Code

[2:21:30] Section 1130103 sdr Definition.

[2:21:34] Failure to properly assess

[2:21:35] the difficulty of reaching

[2:21:36] transit leads to the staff

[2:21:38] report to vastly over estimate

[2:21:44] vmt reduction for the project.

[2:21:45] >> The staff report described

[2:21:48] the following Two regional

[2:21:48] transit hubs the Encanto

[2:21:49] Trolley Station and Euclid

[2:21:52] Avenue Station are located

[2:21:53] approximately one mile from

[2:21:54] the project site.

[2:21:54] Metropolitan Transit Service

[2:21:57] mts Bus Route 917 is located

[2:21:58] near the intersection of Kilton

[2:21:59] Road and Roswell Street.

[2:22:02] Approximate three one half

[2:22:03] miles southwest of the project

[2:22:03] site.

[2:22:06] The picture shows where

[2:22:07] the current bus stops are

[2:22:11] located and the image to

[2:22:12] the right shows the proximity

[2:22:13] of that bus stop to the site

[2:22:15] and then the proximity of

[2:22:16] the two trolley stations to

[2:22:20] the site.

[2:22:25] >> Appeal issue Factual Error.

[2:22:26] Issue number seven Failure to

[2:22:27] consider the potential impacts

[2:22:30] of the project including

[2:22:30] increased traffic and safety

[2:22:34] concerns on 16th Street both

[2:22:35] for daily neighborhood traffic

[2:22:36] and for fire evacuation.

[2:22:40] Cities responses City staff

[2:22:40] reviewed the project for

[2:22:41] potential impacts including

[2:22:42] transportation impacts, safety

[2:22:45] concerns on 16th Street and

[2:22:45] emergency access and emergency

[2:22:49] response.

[2:22:50] >> Factual error Number eight

[2:22:54] the project documentation does

[2:22:55] not include the Fire Marshal

[2:22:55] report nor an evacuation plan

[2:22:59] as required by state and local

[2:22:59] law.

[2:23:00] Even though the proposed site

[2:23:00] is within San Diego's very high

[2:23:04] fire hazard severity zone, our

[2:23:05] response is this The project

[2:23:06] did not trigger the requirement

[2:23:08] for a fire marshal report or a

[2:23:13] fire evacuation report.

[2:23:14] >> In this case the project is

[2:23:18] consistent with the plan

[2:23:18] density for the project site

[2:23:19] which as previously discussed

[2:23:21] would be up to four dwelling

[2:23:22] units per acre and the project

[2:23:23] is consistent with that

[2:23:23] density.

[2:23:27] Therefore again the project id

[2:23:28] not trigger the requirement for

[2:23:29] a fire marshal report or an

[2:23:36] evacuation plan conflict with

[2:23:37] other matters.

[2:23:40] >> Issue one All of the 234

[2:23:40] waivers being requested to

[2:23:44] permit this project including

[2:23:45] but not limited to street

[2:23:46] frontage waiver of the driveway

[2:23:47] with requirements waiver and

[2:23:50] the minimum lot dimensions.

[2:23:51] Rs one seven Waiver These

[2:23:54] waivers would defeat the intent

[2:23:55] of the city's recent repeal of

[2:23:56] footnote seven create a

[2:23:59] concentrated environmental

[2:24:00] justice and just justice burden

[2:24:01] in a historically redlined

[2:24:04] majority black Latino low

[2:24:05] resource neighborhood produce a

[2:24:08] starkly discriminatory outcome

[2:24:09] when compared to low density

[2:24:10] approvals in wealthy mature

[2:24:13] majority white neighborhoods

[2:24:14] such as Foxtail La Hoya and

[2:24:15] expose the city to legal policy

[2:24:18] and public health risk.

[2:24:19] Fair Housing Act Disparate

[2:24:24] impact exposure and sb 1000 and

[2:24:25] Sequoyah vulnerabilities and

[2:24:25] Section b in California

[2:24:28] Environmental Quality Act.

[2:24:33] >> >> sb as previously stated

[2:24:33] the project application was

[2:24:34] deemed complete while Footnote

[2:24:38] seven was still in effect.

[2:24:38] One incentive and five waivers

[2:24:39] are available to the project in

[2:24:40] accordance with the municipal

[2:24:42] code for the provision of 13

[2:24:43] affordable dwelling units made

[2:24:44] available to moderate income

[2:24:47] households.

[2:24:48] >> The project would comply

[2:24:52] with the rs one seven

[2:24:53] regulations with the allowed

[2:24:53] incentives and waivers and

[2:24:54] requested incentives and

[2:24:57] waivers are supported for

[2:24:58] the provision of onsite

[2:25:01] affordable housing.

[2:25:02] >> Furthermore, the project

[2:25:03] supports general planning

[2:25:07] policy E.G. Dash c one and E.J.

[2:25:11] Dash c3 E.J. Being

[2:25:12] environmental justice through

[2:25:13] the provision of publicly

[2:25:14] accessible pocket parks located

[2:25:16] on site, the project also

[2:25:17] enhances connectivity and

[2:25:21] accessibility for all residents

[2:25:22] via public accessible pathways

[2:25:23] parkways and open spaces

[2:25:34] available on the project site.

[2:25:34] The project supports

[2:25:35] the general plan commitment of

[2:25:35] creating and maintaining

[2:25:38] economically and socially

[2:25:39] diverse communities.

[2:25:39] The project would help the city

[2:25:43] meet the regional housing needs

[2:25:43] allocation targets and

[2:25:44] the project would provide safe

[2:25:47] and healthy homes for people of

[2:25:48] all groups allowing them to

[2:25:52] thrive in their communities.

[2:25:57] >> >> As to the differences

[2:25:58] between the Forks de La Hoya

[2:25:58] development and this

[2:26:02] development, I just like to

[2:26:03] identify that the difference

[2:26:03] between the two projects are

[2:26:04] driven by the development

[2:26:07] team's marking conditions and

[2:26:07] the applicable regulations for

[2:26:08] each project.

[2:26:11] Each project is evaluated

[2:26:11] independently and both projects

[2:26:12] as proposed were equitably

[2:26:15] reviewed for conformance with

[2:26:20] the applicable regulations.

[2:26:21] >> As to the issue of legal

[2:26:25] exposure, the City Council will

[2:26:26] consider the appeal issues and

[2:26:27] make a determination affirming

[2:26:30] or denying the appeal based on

[2:26:30] supporting information.

[2:26:33] Senate Bill sb 1000 adopted in

[2:26:34] 2016 promotes environmental

[2:26:39] justice through local land use

[2:26:39] planning.

[2:26:40] The law requires local

[2:26:40] governments with disadvantaged

[2:26:43] communities and or planning

[2:26:44] areas to develop environmental

[2:26:44] justice policies as part of

[2:26:47] the general plan's three

[2:26:48] general plan as required by sb

[2:26:48] 1000.

[2:26:52] Inclusion Environmental justice

[2:26:53] element and is cross-referenced

[2:26:54] with goals and policies of

[2:26:57] other elements in the general

[2:26:58] plan including the housing

[2:26:59] element, the safety element and

[2:27:00] the Climate Action Plan and

[2:27:01] the respective implementation

[2:27:05] plans.

[2:27:06] >> Regarding compliance with

[2:27:07] the California Environmental

[2:27:12] Quality Act, the city as lead

[2:27:12] agency performed a review of

[2:27:13] the project's impacts on

[2:27:16] the environment and prepared an

[2:27:16] addendum to the 2015 Community

[2:27:17] Plan Update program.

[2:27:20] Environmental Impact Report

[2:27:21] based upon the review Note

[2:27:25] Changes in circumstance since

[2:27:26] have occurred and no new

[2:27:26] information of substantial

[2:27:27] importance has manifested which

[2:27:30] would result in new,

[2:27:31] significant or substantially

[2:27:31] increased adverse impacts as a

[2:27:38] result of the proposed project

[2:27:38] .

[2:27:39] >> Therefore the addendum was

[2:27:42] prepared in accordance with

[2:27:42] section 15164 of the score

[2:27:43] guidelines and use of

[2:27:47] the addendum for the project

[2:27:48] complies with sequel guideline

[2:27:52] Section 15168 See the project

[2:27:52] is within the scope of the 2015

[2:27:53] Community Plan Update program

[2:27:56] for and in accordance with

[2:27:57] the mitigation framework from

[2:27:57] the program Air.

[2:27:58] The project was conditioned to

[2:28:01] include a mitigation monitoring

[2:28:02] and reporting program related

[2:28:03] to biological resources and

[2:28:09] paleontological resources

[2:28:10] conflict with other matters

[2:28:15] issued to the lot is in direct

[2:28:15] conflict with the San Diego

[2:28:16] General Plan from 2020 for

[2:28:19] the Parks Master Plan 2021

[2:28:22] the Climate Action Plan from

[2:28:23] 2022 as well as a 2023

[2:28:28] implementation plan Submit to a

[2:28:31] San Diego General Plan 2024

[2:28:36] policy l u h 0.1 affirm any

[2:28:36] further fair housing choice

[2:28:37] promote equal housing

[2:28:41] opportunity and promote

[2:28:42] the development of a balanced

[2:28:42] and equitable communities that

[2:28:44] take into account community

[2:28:45] wide involvement, participation

[2:28:50] and needs.

[2:28:55] >> a summary on a planned

[2:28:55] village development with

[2:28:56] the involvement of a broad

[2:28:56] range of neighborhood and

[2:29:00] business stakeholders including

[2:29:00] traditionally underserved

[2:29:01] communities and take into

[2:29:02] consideration the needs of

[2:29:04] individual neighborhoods.

[2:29:05] Available resources and willing

[2:29:05] partners.

[2:29:09] Invest strategically in public

[2:29:10] infrastructure and offer

[2:29:11] development incentives that are

[2:29:11] consistent with

[2:29:14] the neighborhood's vision and

[2:29:15] then plan for more homes and

[2:29:16] village areas that are located

[2:29:16] in communities with high

[2:29:22] economic opportunity.

[2:29:22] >> The proposed project

[2:29:27] supports the goal The goals of

[2:29:28] policy Lou 8.1 By proposing no

[2:29:32] dwelling units building

[2:29:33] formants with current building

[2:29:33] codes providing fair housing

[2:29:34] choice and promoting equal

[2:29:37] housing opportunity, providing

[2:29:38] balanced housing options within

[2:29:42] the development And just for

[2:29:46] reference 11.1 as found under

[2:29:46] section h of the General Plan

[2:29:47] under balanced communities and

[2:29:58] equitable Development a save

[2:29:58] appeal issue conflict with

[2:29:59] other matters also as far as

[2:30:03] community wide involvement and

[2:30:03] participation discretion Here

[2:30:07] applicants are encouraged to

[2:30:08] work with the community

[2:30:08] planning groups for this

[2:30:09] project.

[2:30:12] Applicant presented as an

[2:30:13] action item to the Choice

[2:30:18] Valley Community Planning Group

[2:30:18] on OCTOBER 28th, 2024 at a

[2:30:19] special meeting.

[2:30:22] The Community Planning Group

[2:30:23] voted to deny the project with

[2:30:26] a vote of zero yes to approve

[2:30:27] and 13 no to deny without

[2:30:30] conditions or recommendation

[2:30:31] and submitted the form to

[2:30:31] the Development Services

[2:30:35] Department.

[2:30:36] >> The project supports

[2:30:36] the following general plan

[2:30:41] goals Investing in public

[2:30:41] infrastructure by providing

[2:30:45] improvements on 60 streets

[2:30:46] which 60 street which include

[2:30:49] road widening and lighting

[2:30:50] public stormwater system

[2:30:50] improvements supports housing

[2:30:54] element goals and policies to

[2:30:55] support the development of

[2:30:56] residential dwelling units

[2:30:58] within our community citywide

[2:30:59] offering development incentives

[2:31:00] consistent with

[2:31:00] the neighborhoods vision

[2:31:03] the project uses utilizes

[2:31:04] incentives and waivers in

[2:31:05] exchange for new affordable

[2:31:08] housing.

[2:31:09] Page two Dash 21 of

[2:31:10] the Community plan states

[2:31:13] the plan seeks to expand and

[2:31:14] preserve the supply of

[2:31:14] affordable housing.

[2:31:15] >> The project will also be

[2:31:19] playing paint into

[2:31:20] the development impact fees and

[2:31:20] San Diego Municipal Court

[2:31:22] regular regulations incentivize

[2:31:27] additional dwelling units

[2:31:28] conflict with other matters.

[2:31:32] Issue b City of San Diego marks

[2:31:32] our City of San Diego Parks

[2:31:35] Master Plan of 2021.

[2:31:36] Equity is a central value of

[2:31:40] the city city's parks master

[2:31:40] plan.

[2:31:41] Park planning and investments

[2:31:42] should address long lasting

[2:31:44] inequities in the city's parks

[2:31:45] system experienced by people

[2:31:49] that live in traditionally

[2:31:50] underserved communities and

[2:31:50] areas with the greatest park

[2:31:51] deficiencies.

[2:31:54] Areas of the city where we know

[2:31:55] that the greatest need exist.

[2:31:55] By ensuring equal access to

[2:31:59] meaningful recreation

[2:32:00] opportunities, the city's park

[2:32:00] and recreation needs have

[2:32:05] evolved influenced by change in

[2:32:05] population and demographics and

[2:32:06] development patterns.

[2:32:10] Communities vary in the quality

[2:32:10] and availability of park space

[2:32:11] due to patterns of historical

[2:32:14] growth.

[2:32:15] >> Prior development patterns

[2:32:19] have also left parts of

[2:32:20] the city with fewer connections

[2:32:21] to parks and natural areas More

[2:32:24] growth located in existing

[2:32:24] neighborhoods.

[2:32:25] Increases demand for parks that

[2:32:26] meet the unique needs of these

[2:32:29] developed areas that contain

[2:32:30] limited land for new park

[2:32:30] spaces.

[2:32:34] Prioritizing parks in these

[2:32:34] neighborhoods that are

[2:32:35] experiencing the greatest rates

[2:32:39] of residential growth is

[2:32:39] critical.

[2:32:40] The project to address

[2:32:43] the current park inequities

[2:32:44] the city is prioritizing park

[2:32:45] deficient and underserved

[2:32:48] communities by allocating at a

[2:32:48] minimum 80% of the citywide

[2:32:52] park development impact to park

[2:32:53] deficient communities with at

[2:32:54] least 50% of that amount to be

[2:32:57] prioritized solely within

[2:32:58] traditionally underserved

[2:32:58] communities for at least five

[2:32:59] years.

[2:33:03] This project would meet that

[2:33:04] goal by paying their

[2:33:12] development impact fees.

[2:33:13] >> The project will support

[2:33:16] the city's Park Master plan by

[2:33:17] again paying the applicable

[2:33:17] impact fees.

[2:33:20] Public improvements to 60

[2:33:21] Street providing accessible

[2:33:22] paths throughout the project

[2:33:26] site that connect the existing

[2:33:26] that connect to the existing

[2:33:27] Encanto neighborhood park.

[2:33:29] And providing for onsite pocket

[2:33:30] parks that will be publicly

[2:33:35] accessible conflict with other

[2:33:39] matters Appeal issue See San

[2:33:42] Diego Climate Action Plan from

[2:33:43] 2022 states addressing

[2:33:47] inequality and systemic racism

[2:33:48] requires a thoughtful and

[2:33:48] intentional approach that

[2:33:49] empowers and includes our

[2:33:53] community.

[2:33:53] Communities experiencing

[2:33:54] structural exclusion.

[2:33:57] To create equitable outcomes we

[2:33:58] must prioritize action and

[2:33:58] invest where the need is

[2:34:02] greatest by involving impacted

[2:34:03] community members in the city's

[2:34:03] decision making process early

[2:34:04] and through continual

[2:34:07] partnerships.

[2:34:08] For this reason the concept of

[2:34:08] climate equity is critical

[2:34:11] throughout the climate Action

[2:34:11] Plan.

[2:34:16] Page 11.

[2:34:16] >> The project works against

[2:34:17] the City of San Diego's Climate

[2:34:21] Action Goals that came out

[2:34:22] today stating the city's

[2:34:25] climate objectives are exceeded

[2:34:25] by 2% carbon emissions.

[2:34:26] Creating a park instead of

[2:34:29] dense housing will help with

[2:34:30] this objective.

[2:34:30] California law requires

[2:34:34] jurisdictions to consider

[2:34:35] environmental justice and

[2:34:35] reduce concentrated

[2:34:36] environmental burdens and

[2:34:39] disadvantage communities.

[2:34:40] Epa and peer reviewed

[2:34:41] literature document Worse

[2:34:45] document Worse health outcomes

[2:34:49] where burdens concentrate.

[2:34:50] >> sb 1000 Environmental

[2:34:54] justice obligations require

[2:34:55] local governments identify

[2:34:55] disadvantaged communities and

[2:34:59] adopt policies to reduce

[2:35:00] disproportionate,

[2:35:00] disproportionate environmental

[2:35:01] and public health burdens.

[2:35:04] A decision that concentrates

[2:35:05] density and the and

[2:35:09] the discrete burdens that often

[2:35:10] accompany rapid infill

[2:35:10] construction vehicle emissions

[2:35:14] inadequate public facilities,

[2:35:14] loss of planned parkland in an

[2:35:15] environmental justice community

[2:35:19] without robust mitigation is

[2:35:19] inconsistent Inconsistent with

[2:35:23] the law sb 1000 mandate

[2:35:23] programs and approvals as

[2:35:27] systemic systematically locate

[2:35:28] greater housing burdens in

[2:35:28] communities of color and create

[2:35:32] a disparate impact claim under

[2:35:33] federal and state fair housing

[2:35:33] law.

[2:35:38] The clear difference between

[2:35:38] allowing dense approvals in

[2:35:39] historically black Latino

[2:35:42] neighborhoods creates a prima

[2:35:43] facie discriminatory pattern

[2:35:47] that the city must explicitly

[2:35:47] justify with legitimate

[2:35:48] nondiscriminatory reasons and

[2:35:53] evidence As stated in

[2:35:53] the asserted in appeal issues

[2:35:57] raised.

[2:35:58] To create equitable outcomes we

[2:35:58] must prioritize action and

[2:36:01] investment where the need is

[2:36:02] greatest by involving impacted

[2:36:03] community members in the city's

[2:36:07] decision making process early

[2:36:07] and through continual

[2:36:08] partnerships.

[2:36:11] The applicant for the project

[2:36:12] involved the community by

[2:36:12] presenting their project to

[2:36:13] the Community Planning group

[2:36:15] and through other outreach

[2:36:16] efforts that the applicant will

[2:36:17] describe during their

[2:36:21] presentation.

[2:36:21] >> The project supports

[2:36:25] investment in and prioritize

[2:36:26] the community by conforming to

[2:36:26] the requirements of the Climate

[2:36:30] Action Plan by paying

[2:36:31] the development impact fees in

[2:36:32] accordance with the city's Park

[2:36:35] Master Plan which fund public

[2:36:36] infrastructure and services

[2:36:36] like parks, mobility libraries

[2:36:37] and emergency services

[2:36:41] including fire.

[2:36:41] Improving existing

[2:36:42] infrastructure within public

[2:36:45] right of ways to improve

[2:36:46] accessibility and connectivity.

[2:36:47] And conformance with

[2:36:47] the entirety of the Climate

[2:36:49] Action Plan goals and policies

[2:36:50] related to the development of

[2:36:54] housing.

[2:36:55] >> The project supports

[2:36:56] environmental justice by

[2:36:59] providing improved and

[2:37:00] diversified opportunities for

[2:37:00] play in public spaces for all

[2:37:03] people.

[2:37:04] Homeownership opportunities

[2:37:05] including affordable housing

[2:37:08] housing for a variety of

[2:37:09] household sizes, encouraging

[2:37:10] location and resource efficient

[2:37:13] development near established

[2:37:14] community resources and safe

[2:37:14] and healthy homes Meeting

[2:37:18] current building codes Conflict

[2:37:23] with other matters issued 2023

[2:37:23] Implementation Plan States

[2:37:27] Prioritizing communities of

[2:37:28] concern while preparing

[2:37:28] the 2022 Climate Action Plan.

[2:37:32] City staff work closely closely

[2:37:33] with stakeholders to develop a

[2:37:34] method for scoring each cap

[2:37:37] action to understand its

[2:37:38] potential to prioritize and

[2:37:39] empower residents within

[2:37:39] communities that have been

[2:37:43] historically underinvested in

[2:37:43] and to address those

[2:37:44] disparities.

[2:37:48] To create equitable outcomes we

[2:37:49] must prioritize action and

[2:37:49] invest where the need is

[2:37:53] greatest by involving impacted

[2:37:54] community members in the city's

[2:37:54] decision making process.

[2:37:58] Early and through continued

[2:37:58] partnerships.

[2:37:59] For this reason the concept of

[2:38:03] climate equity is critical

[2:38:04] throughout the 2022 Climate

[2:38:04] Action Plan and the similar

[2:38:07] implementation plan.

[2:38:08] The city will continue to

[2:38:12] frequently consult with CBOs on

[2:38:13] climate equity policy on use of

[2:38:17] these tools specifically and on

[2:38:17] equitable cap implementation

[2:38:18] generally.

[2:38:22] Page six a new faq to wrap up

[2:38:25] We have a lot of conversation

[2:38:30] today on the funding sources

[2:38:30] Already one of the funding

[2:38:31] sources already used to invest

[2:38:34] in structurally excluded

[2:38:35] communities is the city's

[2:38:36] Climate Equity Fund which

[2:38:40] the city established in 2021

[2:38:40] and as a dedicated source of

[2:38:41] supplemental funding for

[2:38:45] infrastructure projects in

[2:38:45] communities of concern.

[2:38:46] The implementation plan also

[2:38:49] reference Council policy 800

[2:38:49] Dash 14 which prioritized

[2:38:50] capital improvement program

[2:38:54] projects and the goal of Parks

[2:38:55] Master plan to prioritize park

[2:38:55] dips to park deficient

[2:38:58] communities.

[2:38:59] The project supports

[2:39:03] the Climate Action Plan

[2:39:04] implementation plan by paying

[2:39:05] the required development impact

[2:39:08] fees Investing in improvement

[2:39:08] of existing infrastructure

[2:39:09] within the community through

[2:39:13] public through project related

[2:39:14] public improvements and by

[2:39:14] presenting the project to

[2:39:15] the Community Planning Group on

[2:39:20] OCTOBER 28th, 2024.

[2:39:21] Findings are supported.

[2:39:21] Issue one.

[2:39:25] Allowance of the subdivision

[2:39:26] map based on the interpretation

[2:39:26] that the project was deemed

[2:39:27] complete before repeal of

[2:39:30] footnote seven.

[2:39:31] This assertion assertion

[2:39:31] disregards that it is

[2:39:32] the approval of the project not

[2:39:35] the date of application that

[2:39:36] determines vesting rights under

[2:39:36] state law.

[2:39:39] As evidenced by

[2:39:40] the discriminant this sorry

[2:39:40] discretionary approval for

[2:39:45] the project that are being

[2:39:45] asked of the Planning

[2:39:46] Commission at the NOVEMBER

[2:39:49] 20th, 2025 hearing pursuant to

[2:39:49] state law development

[2:39:50] applications that have been

[2:39:54] deemed complete are entitled to

[2:39:54] proceed under the law and

[2:39:55] policies in effect at the time

[2:39:56] the application was deemed

[2:40:01] complete.

[2:40:02] >> Findings not Supported Issue

[2:40:02] two.

[2:40:06] This project creates a chronic

[2:40:07] concentrated environmental

[2:40:07] justice burden and a

[2:40:08] historically red line majority

[2:40:11] Black Latino low resource

[2:40:11] neighborhood.

[2:40:12] It will produce a starkly

[2:40:16] discriminatory outcome when

[2:40:16] compared to with low density

[2:40:17] approvals in wealthy majority

[2:40:21] white neighborhoods such as

[2:40:21] Foxtail La Hoya.

[2:40:25] This was previously addressed

[2:40:26] under complex with other

[2:40:29] matters New Information Appeal

[2:40:30] Issue one This project defeats

[2:40:31] the intent of the repeal of

[2:40:33] Footnote seven The City of San

[2:40:34] Diego Council agreed upon in

[2:40:37] APRIL of 2025.

[2:40:37] This was also previously

[2:40:38] discussed in the response in

[2:40:40] the same issue under findings

[2:40:45] not supported new information

[2:40:46] appeal issue to insufficient

[2:40:47] time to review hundreds of

[2:40:50] pages of project documents

[2:40:50] which were only provided to

[2:40:53] the public on public on

[2:40:54] NOVEMBER 14th, 2025 for less

[2:40:54] than one week before

[2:40:58] the hearing in accordance with

[2:40:58] the requirements of the Brown

[2:40:59] Act, a notice of public hearing

[2:41:00] was distributed and the agenda

[2:41:03] was posted a minimum of 72

[2:41:04] hours prior to today's City

[2:41:05] Council hearing and the same

[2:41:08] was done prior to planning

[2:41:09] Commission Oligo Requirements

[2:41:13] Format New information issue

[2:41:13] three.

[2:41:13] Failure to consult

[2:41:14] the Community The staff report

[2:41:19] cites vote by the Community

[2:41:19] Planning Group on OCTOBER 2024.

[2:41:20] However this vote was taken

[2:41:23] while Footnote seven was still

[2:41:24] in effect and in fact

[2:41:25] the project triggered

[2:41:25] the public discovery of

[2:41:28] footnote seven in the municipal

[2:41:29] Code and the legally disputable

[2:41:32] process by which footnote seven

[2:41:33] was adopted.

[2:41:34] Engagement with the community

[2:41:34] would allow the developer,

[2:41:35] the community and the city of

[2:41:37] San Diego to explore

[2:41:38] alternative uses of the site

[2:41:42] that would be acceptable to all

[2:41:42] parties.

[2:41:43] Again, the project was

[2:41:46] presented to the community

[2:41:47] Planning Group on OCTOBER 28th,

[2:41:48] 2024 and staff has been made

[2:41:52] available to respond to phone

[2:41:53] calls and correspondence.

[2:41:53] Development Services did not

[2:41:56] receive a request for

[2:41:57] additional coordination with

[2:41:57] the Community Planning Group

[2:41:58] and staff Acknowledge

[2:42:00] the receipt of the vote for

[2:42:01] denial from the Community

[2:42:05] Planning group City wide

[2:42:06] Implication Issue one.

[2:42:11] Residents neighboring a

[2:42:11] proposed development MAY have

[2:42:12] due process rights connected to

[2:42:13] their property interests if

[2:42:15] they believe it will decrease

[2:42:16] their tangible or intangible

[2:42:16] property value.

[2:42:19] Choice Valley Encanto Planning

[2:42:20] Group was not I was not

[2:42:21] notified of this project by

[2:42:22] the applicant or by the city of

[2:42:24] San Diego before the secret

[2:42:25] determination was made.

[2:42:26] The Community Planning Group is

[2:42:29] not aware of notice being given

[2:42:30] to the potentially affected

[2:42:34] neighbors by other substituted

[2:42:34] means.

[2:42:35] Thus the residents have not

[2:42:35] been have been deprived of

[2:42:39] procedural due process on this

[2:42:40] matter because they were not

[2:42:41] given a chance to voice their

[2:42:43] concerns at a community

[2:42:44] planning group meeting.

[2:42:45] The public hearing or other

[2:42:49] procedural mechanism after

[2:42:49] substantive notice with respect

[2:42:53] to content and time To

[2:42:54] the extent that this lack of

[2:42:55] notice of development

[2:42:58] applications or permits extends

[2:42:59] to other community plan areas.

[2:43:00] This matter has city wide

[2:43:03] implications.

[2:43:04] As stated earlier, the project

[2:43:05] was noticed in accordance with

[2:43:05] requirements of the municipal

[2:43:08] code in accordance with

[2:43:08] the California Environmental

[2:43:09] Quality Act Statutes and

[2:43:13] guidelines Section 15164 See an

[2:43:13] addendum need not be circulated

[2:43:18] for public review but can be

[2:43:19] included in or attached to

[2:43:19] the final environmental impact

[2:43:22] report.

[2:43:23] The addendum to the 2025

[2:43:24] Community Plan Update Program

[2:43:27] Environmental Impact Report was

[2:43:28] posted on the city's California

[2:43:29] Environmental Quality Act

[2:43:33] website for final environmental

[2:43:34] documents on NOVEMBER 14th,

[2:43:34] 2025 and a link to the docket a

[2:43:37] link to the document was

[2:43:38] included in the staff report to

[2:43:43] the Planning Commission.

[2:43:48] >> >> Citywide implication.

[2:43:49] Issue to expose as a city to

[2:43:49] legal policy and public health

[2:43:53] risk based on fair housing

[2:43:53] disparate impact exposure and

[2:43:57] sb 1000 sequel vulnerabilities.

[2:43:58] >> This was previously

[2:43:59] addressed under conflict with

[2:44:02] other matters of issue one.

[2:44:03] City wide Implication of Pill

[2:44:04] Issue three The 31 acres have

[2:44:07] been slated for park for many

[2:44:08] years a park not only for our

[2:44:09] communities of Choice Valley

[2:44:13] but for the entire city of San

[2:44:13] Diego.

[2:44:14] The views alone are worthy of

[2:44:15] upgrading quality of life for

[2:44:15] residents of our city.

[2:44:18] This was previously addressed

[2:44:19] under factual letter errors

[2:44:23] Appeal Issue Item five Staff's

[2:44:29] recommendation is City Council

[2:44:30] deny the appeal and affirmed

[2:44:30] the Planning Commission's

[2:44:31] decision to approve the basin

[2:44:34] Tentative map.

[2:44:35] >> The site development permit

[2:44:36] the Neighborhood Development

[2:44:36] permit and a neighborhood use

[2:44:39] permit that concludes staff's

[2:44:45] presentation.

[2:44:46] We have we have sorry we have

[2:44:50] the applicant and city staff to

[2:44:51] answer any questions.

[2:44:51] All right.

[2:44:51] Thank you for that.

[2:44:52] For first I'll turn it over to

[2:44:55] the office of the city attorney

[2:44:56] for comments.

[2:44:56] >> Thank you, Council

[2:44:56] PRESIDENT.

[2:45:00] Our office will outline some

[2:45:01] legal considerations for

[2:45:01] today's item when hearing and

[2:45:05] deciding upon a project appeal

[2:45:06] ,the Council MAY affirm,

[2:45:06] reverse or modify the Planning

[2:45:11] Commission's decision.

[2:45:11] A decision to reverse or modify

[2:45:12] the Planning Commission's

[2:45:15] decision must be based on one

[2:45:16] or more of the following one

[2:45:19] factual error two new

[2:45:20] information three findings that

[2:45:20] are not supported for conflict

[2:45:24] with the land Use plan Council

[2:45:25] policy or the municipal Code or

[2:45:25] five city wide significance In

[2:45:29] addition to approving

[2:45:30] the project, the Planning

[2:45:30] Commission considered and

[2:45:31] adopted an environmental

[2:45:35] addendum prepared by staff.

[2:45:35] An addendum is not an

[2:45:36] environmental determination

[2:45:40] that is subject to appeal under

[2:45:41] the municipal Code or sequa and

[2:45:42] therefore MAY not be appealed.

[2:45:46] That conclusion is supported by

[2:45:47] an appellate opinion from

[2:45:47] the fourth Appellate District

[2:45:48] in California.

[2:45:52] This project is subject to

[2:45:52] the State Housing

[2:45:53] Accountability Act because it

[2:45:57] meets the definition of a

[2:45:57] housing development project.

[2:45:58] Under this state law the city

[2:46:02] MAY not apply development

[2:46:03] standards that were not in

[2:46:03] effect at the time

[2:46:04] The application was deemed

[2:46:08] complete at the time

[2:46:09] the application for this

[2:46:09] project was deemed complete.

[2:46:12] Footnote seven was in effect if

[2:46:13] after hearing the evidence

[2:46:18] presented Council would like to

[2:46:18] deny the project or impose

[2:46:19] conditions that the project be

[2:46:24] developed a lower density.

[2:46:24] State law requires that council

[2:46:25] base that decision upon written

[2:46:30] findings supported by a

[2:46:31] preponderance of the evidence

[2:46:31] on the record that each of

[2:46:32] the following exist.

[2:46:35] One.

[2:46:36] The project would have a

[2:46:37] specific adverse impact upon

[2:46:41] the public health or safety.

[2:46:42] And two there is no feasible

[2:46:43] method to satisfactorily

[2:46:47] mitigate or avoid that adverse

[2:46:47] impact.

[2:46:48] >> That concludes my comments.

[2:46:48] All right.

[2:46:53] Thank you for that.

[2:46:54] So before we open it up to

[2:46:55] public comment, we'll have

[2:46:59] we'll hear from the appellant

[2:47:00] and then we'll hear from

[2:47:00] the applicant.

[2:47:04] So I invite the applicant

[2:47:05] excuse me the appellant to come

[2:47:05] up.

[2:47:17] My apologies.

[2:47:18] >> And how much time do you

[2:47:18] need for your presentation?

[2:47:22] So I get 35 minutes.

[2:47:23] If you need 35 minutes That's

[2:47:23] what they talk?

[2:47:24] Yes.

[2:47:28] I don't think you prefer.

[2:47:29] Can you tell me though how much

[2:47:30] time so I can put it on

[2:47:30] the table?

[2:47:33] Probably 15.

[2:47:34] Okay.

[2:47:35] I would like to thank all

[2:47:39] the community and community

[2:47:40] members who are here today from

[2:47:45] our beautiful city excuse me

[2:47:46] who have showed up today in

[2:47:51] person and online.

[2:47:52] I appreciate the time,

[2:47:52] the energy and the effort it

[2:47:53] took folks to have better

[2:47:58] support parks and Justice in

[2:47:58] our community.

[2:47:59] Honorable Council PRESIDENT

[2:48:03] LaCava.

[2:48:04] And honorable Council members.

[2:48:05] Today our neighborhood of

[2:48:09] AltaVista Broadway Heights,

[2:48:10] Troy a few Emerald Hills

[2:48:15] Encanto Lincoln Park, o'Farrell

[2:48:16] and Valencia Park are sending a

[2:48:21] signal to our leaders to

[2:48:21] envision the opportunity to

[2:48:22] create an urban sanctuary

[2:48:27] investing in our children,

[2:48:28] investing in our environment

[2:48:32] and investing in our health.

[2:48:33] I respectfully request if

[2:48:34] everyone on the dais would

[2:48:38] raise their hands if they've

[2:48:39] ever been to the Radio Tower

[2:48:44] site.

[2:48:50] Next slide please.

[2:48:51] Today we are sending a signal.

[2:48:55] Support the appeal and use your

[2:48:56] discretionary authority.

[2:48:57] The City Council have

[2:48:57] the choice to support our

[2:48:58] appeal and deny the Emerald

[2:49:02] Hills project.

[2:49:03] This discretionary review

[2:49:03] allows the Council to exercise

[2:49:08] your legal power and authority

[2:49:08] to consider whether this

[2:49:14] project follows the legally

[2:49:15] binding encanto community plan

[2:49:16] complying with zoning laws and

[2:49:16] variances.

[2:49:21] The deemed project complete

[2:49:22] with just the application

[2:49:22] triggering vesting rights.

[2:49:28] Properly qualifies for

[2:49:28] the city's fiscal

[2:49:29] determination.

[2:49:29] This project protects public

[2:49:34] safety and infrastructure in

[2:49:34] very high fire severity zones

[2:49:35] and evacuation routes and

[2:49:40] follows sb 1000 and

[2:49:40] environmental justice

[2:49:41] obligation and meets

[2:49:45] the requirements of

[2:49:46] the discretionary permit.

[2:49:46] Our appeal today argues that

[2:49:52] this project does not meet any

[2:49:52] of these standards and cdp g.

[2:49:57] And Neighborhood Council have

[2:49:57] rejected the project from

[2:49:58] the very first presentation.

[2:50:03] The Council should support this

[2:50:04] appeal and deny the project.

[2:50:04] Next slide please.

[2:50:09] This project conflicts with

[2:50:10] the Encanto Neighborhood

[2:50:10] Community plan.

[2:50:15] The Encanto Neighborhood

[2:50:16] Community Plan calls for

[2:50:16] preserving large lots and

[2:50:21] single family neighborhoods.

[2:50:22] Footnote seven Change the rules

[2:50:22] without due process by reducing

[2:50:30] minimum white fibers from

[2:50:31] 20,000ft to 5000ft in Encanto

[2:50:31] and Emerald Hills only.

[2:50:36] dft deems the project complete

[2:50:37] and engaged vesting rights for

[2:50:43] a mere application.

[2:50:44] Community members invested by

[2:50:44] pleased community members

[2:50:48] invested extensive volunteer

[2:50:49] time reviewing city records and

[2:50:49] public documents leading to

[2:50:50] the discovery that Footnote

[2:50:54] seven was adopted improperly

[2:50:55] and would never valid and must

[2:51:00] not be applied to any project.

[2:51:01] The process undermines due

[2:51:01] process.

[2:51:07] Transparency and meaningful

[2:51:07] community engagement.

[2:51:12] Our community is fed up with

[2:51:13] being undermined by the color

[2:51:13] of law.

[2:51:17] The project increases density

[2:51:22] by 75% and has to add 234

[2:51:23] variances.

[2:51:23] On top of that there are steep

[2:51:24] slopes on this parcel.

[2:51:29] Some waivers are three front

[2:51:30] waivers.

[2:51:30] Drive it driveway with

[2:51:31] requirement and minimum block

[2:51:35] dimension are one through seven

[2:51:35] waivers.

[2:51:36] Next I believe the Council

[2:51:41] should support this appeal and

[2:51:42] deny the project unequal land

[2:51:42] use outcome.

[2:51:47] The Council should not approve

[2:51:48] land use patterns that place

[2:51:52] greater density and concentrate

[2:51:53] environmental burdens in

[2:51:54] Emerald Hills while preserving

[2:51:59] lower density outcomes in

[2:52:00] wealthier communities.

[2:52:00] This appeal compares

[2:52:01] the Emerald Hill subdivision

[2:52:05] with the low density approval

[2:52:09] at Fox Farms in La Hoya of 18

[2:52:10] homes on the same 32 acre

[2:52:20] parcel compared to our 123.

[2:52:20] Your decision today will or

[2:52:21] will not perpetuate patterns of

[2:52:22] discrimination.

[2:52:26] Wealthier communities preserve

[2:52:26] lower density development

[2:52:27] producing a stark

[2:52:27] discriminatory outcome.

[2:52:32] Historically the underserved

[2:52:33] structurally neglected

[2:52:34] communities receive greater

[2:52:39] density without any

[2:52:40] infrastructure improvements.

[2:52:40] Removing the opportunity to

[2:52:45] right rightsize park inequity

[2:52:46] in community but concerned with

[2:52:46] scale environmental and

[2:52:51] infrastructural infrastructure

[2:52:52] burdens are concentrated in low

[2:52:52] resource communities and

[2:52:57] communities of color.

[2:52:58] Land use decisions either

[2:53:03] expand or reinforce existing

[2:53:04] inequities by defining

[2:53:04] environmental justice

[2:53:09] opportunities.

[2:53:10] Public health burdens like air

[2:53:11] quality and environmental

[2:53:15] justice obligations where local

[2:53:16] governments adopt policies

[2:53:16] reduce these burdens.

[2:53:17] The Council should support this

[2:53:19] appeal and deny the project.

[2:53:25] >> Next slide please.

[2:53:26] Park Equity and Environmental

[2:53:26] Justice Invest in our children.

[2:53:32] Invest in our health.

[2:53:32] Invest in our safety.

[2:53:33] The Council has an opportunity

[2:53:34] to set a precedent that our

[2:53:38] leaders will no longer tolerate

[2:53:39] Environmental injustices.

[2:53:39] Support advisable Park in

[2:53:44] Emerald Hills and San Diego

[2:53:45] neighborhoods of color have 64%

[2:53:50] less park space per person

[2:53:51] versus white neighborhoods.

[2:53:55] Low resource neighborhoods have

[2:53:56] neighborhoods have 71% less

[2:53:56] park space than high income

[2:54:00] neighborhoods per tpl or mixed

[2:54:05] light.

[2:54:06] >> San Diego County faces

[2:54:12] serious air quality burdens but

[2:54:12] we are the seventh worth

[2:54:16] nationally for ozone and

[2:54:17] the fifth worst year for year

[2:54:20] round particle pollution in

[2:54:21] the 2026 State of the Air

[2:54:21] report.

[2:54:27] A park could mitigate some of

[2:54:27] this fighting historic

[2:54:28] disinvestment and neglect in

[2:54:33] our underserved communities by

[2:54:33] investing in our children,

[2:54:34] enriching educational and

[2:54:39] economic opportunity through

[2:54:40] health, well-being and social

[2:54:40] impact.

[2:54:45] This is the medicine of our

[2:54:46] times and sizable park but also

[2:54:46] support park equity, climate

[2:54:51] equity, public health and

[2:54:51] community Quality of life.

[2:54:52] Next slide please.

[2:54:57] The Council should support

[2:54:58] the appeal and deny the project

[2:54:59] fp 1000 and Environmental

[2:55:03] Justice obligations.

[2:55:03] This project is an

[2:55:04] environmental burden because

[2:55:09] the community loses sizable

[2:55:09] parkland.

[2:55:10] A climate action goal.

[2:55:15] The city has an obligation to

[2:55:16] decrease the burden on

[2:55:16] environmental degradation

[2:55:17] right?

[2:55:21] Both neighborhoods

[2:55:22] disproportionately burdened by

[2:55:22] pollution or environmental

[2:55:23] hazards.

[2:55:26] Ensure residents are actively

[2:55:27] involved in municipal decision

[2:55:28] making and land use planning.

[2:55:33] Adopt tailored goals and policy

[2:55:34] to reduce pollution exposure,

[2:55:34] improve air quality and promote

[2:55:35] public health.

[2:55:39] Address systemic inequities

[2:55:40] that focus heavily on

[2:55:40] accessible parks.

[2:55:45] Equitable access to healthy

[2:55:46] food and safe housing.

[2:55:46] i believe the Council should

[2:55:51] support the appeal and deny

[2:55:52] the project.

[2:55:52] Fire evacuation risks and

[2:55:53] public safety issues.

[2:55:57] Poor evacuation routes can turn

[2:55:57] added density into a serious

[2:56:02] fire safety risk.

[2:56:03] This project is in a very high

[2:56:08] fire severity zone.

[2:56:09] Imagine 123 more homes or

[2:56:14] possibly 492 homes with a bonus

[2:56:14] adu law.

[2:56:19] The surrounding area also has

[2:56:20] limited nearby fire station

[2:56:20] coverage making safe evacuation

[2:56:25] routes an emergency access even

[2:56:26] more important in a wildfire

[2:56:26] emergency.

[2:56:31] Narrow or constrained roads can

[2:56:32] create traffic bottlenecks

[2:56:37] delayed evacuation slower

[2:56:38] emergency response.

[2:56:38] Public safety concerns during

[2:56:39] evacuations.

[2:56:44] The surrounding road network

[2:56:44] cannot safely handle

[2:56:45] evacuations under emergency

[2:56:49] conditions.

[2:56:50] Next slide please.

[2:56:51] The council should support

[2:56:54] the appeal and deny the project

[2:57:00] line.

[2:57:01] >> So but this would be a

[2:57:06] solution The land swap solution

[2:57:07] for a legacy park a community

[2:57:08] center solution that

[2:57:09] prioritizes public parkland and

[2:57:13] environmental protection and

[2:57:13] public safety a legacy park

[2:57:14] proposing a solution that would

[2:57:15] facilitate an alternative

[2:57:19] development for D.R. Horton in

[2:57:20] exchange for radio towers

[2:57:20] parcels and permanent park

[2:57:21] land.

[2:57:26] The framework for this is not

[2:57:27] an untested idea in California.

[2:57:31] The developer received a viable

[2:57:32] low risk alternative.

[2:57:32] The city advances housing

[2:57:33] production on a more suitable

[2:57:38] site while honoring

[2:57:39] the community plan.

[2:57:39] The residents of southeastern

[2:57:40] Diego received a once in a

[2:57:44] generation destination park.

[2:57:44] This is pragmatic equity

[2:57:50] centered problem solving

[2:57:50] solution.

[2:57:51] We are asking the City Council

[2:57:57] to champion a legacy The park

[2:57:57] could honor our veterans.

[2:57:58] Could honor our sports icons,

[2:57:59] put onto honor our cultural

[2:58:02] icons from our community.

[2:58:03] A place for the rest of

[2:58:08] the city to take in the vistas

[2:58:09] and the beauty of our amazing

[2:58:09] city.

[2:58:10] This Council should support

[2:58:14] this appeal and deny

[2:58:14] the project.

[2:58:15] Please.

[2:58:15] Today we are sending a signal

[2:58:20] to City Council to support our

[2:58:20] appeal and to exercise your

[2:58:21] legal power of discretionary

[2:58:26] review.

[2:58:27] This Council has the authority

[2:58:27] to support the appeal.

[2:58:28] This Council has an opportunity

[2:58:32] to right size historic

[2:58:33] disinvestment and neglect.

[2:58:38] Enjoy the Valley communities

[2:58:39] see the vision our community

[2:58:39] has.

[2:58:39] This is a discretionary

[2:58:40] project.

[2:58:44] This project conflicts with

[2:58:44] the neighborhood community

[2:58:45] the Encanto Neighborhood

[2:58:50] Community Plan and Footnote

[2:58:50] seven undermines due process

[2:58:51] transparency and meaningful

[2:58:56] community engagement.

[2:58:56] The project fails to comply

[2:58:57] with fha Park Equity

[2:59:02] Environmental justice

[2:59:02] Infrastructure and fire

[2:59:03] Evacuation safety.

[2:59:08] Invest in your children.

[2:59:08] Invest in our children.

[2:59:09] Invest in our health and invest

[2:59:14] in our safety.

[2:59:15] Together let's create an urban

[2:59:15] sanctuary for our beautiful

[2:59:20] city.

[2:59:20] You can't make more land.

[2:59:21] The Council should support

[2:59:22] the appeal and deny

[2:59:23] the project.

[2:59:37] >> Thank you.

[2:59:45] By this they have more to do.

[2:59:51] >> Can you play the next slide

[2:59:51] which is a new article from

[2:59:52] tpf.

[2:59:58] Is that allowable?

[3:00:05] Thank you.

[3:00:06] >> There's nothing on the slide

[3:00:10] but a white screen.

[3:00:11] I'm sorry but we could have

[3:00:16] only put it into the record.

[3:00:17] No, this is the last slide that

[3:00:27] we received.

[3:00:28] >> Okay.

[3:00:30] Now I invite the applicant on

[3:00:48] the project.

[3:00:49] >> Good afternoon, MR. Council

[3:00:49] PRESIDENT.

[3:00:55] We give equal time to

[3:00:56] the applicant and

[3:00:56] the appellant.

[3:00:57] They took 15.

[3:00:58] I'm sorry They took 15 minutes.

[3:01:03] So that is fine.

[3:01:03] Okay.

[3:01:04] And it was off the record.

[3:01:04] Thank you.

[3:01:05] I agree in this regard.

[3:01:05] Good afternoon.

[3:01:07] Council PRESIDENT Members of

[3:01:08] City Council My name is Daniel

[3:01:08] Boyd, vice PRESIDENT For

[3:01:09] attorneys for D.R. Horton.

[3:01:12] We're very pleased to present

[3:01:13] and defend our project

[3:01:13] proposal.

[3:01:14] Item number 331 for you today.

[3:01:18] First of all, we very much

[3:01:19] appreciate staff's dedication

[3:01:19] and time.

[3:01:20] Over the past several months if

[3:01:24] not years.

[3:01:24] We also appreciate

[3:01:25] the appellant's presentation

[3:01:26] and we appreciate the community

[3:01:26] standing behind me.

[3:01:30] We have been very involved with

[3:01:30] the community.

[3:01:31] I'll be short with our overall

[3:01:36] visual presentation.

[3:01:36] That was your first warning.

[3:01:37] I will be very brief as to our

[3:01:41] next slide please.

[3:01:42] I'll be very brief as the staff

[3:01:43] report was very thorough and I

[3:01:48] don't need to be redundant.

[3:01:49] Our project includes, as we

[3:01:49] heard 223 single family

[3:01:54] detached homes set on a minimum

[3:01:55] of 5000 square foot lots.

[3:01:59] These lots however near average

[3:02:00] nearly 6000 square foot lots.

[3:02:01] These lots also stretch into 7

[3:02:01] to 8in.

[3:02:05] The proposals also include open

[3:02:06] space areas designed for

[3:02:06] passive recreation for

[3:02:07] the community residences and

[3:02:11] open to the public for

[3:02:12] the general community to enjoy.

[3:02:12] These open spaces will include

[3:02:17] typical passive amenities such

[3:02:17] as park benches, fountains,

[3:02:18] accommodations for dogs but

[3:02:23] even more importantly provides

[3:02:23] an opportunity for

[3:02:24] the community to converse, meet

[3:02:25] and just discuss and of course

[3:02:28] enjoy the views.

[3:02:29] Next slide please.

[3:02:34] The project is access to Hopper

[3:02:34] 16th Street.

[3:02:35] It has one access object but

[3:02:38] emergency vehicle access after

[3:02:39] full memory lane.

[3:02:40] That was done by chance.

[3:02:41] That was done by design in

[3:02:44] conformance with all

[3:02:45] the ability requirements set

[3:02:46] forth under this project.

[3:02:50] We are very pleased that part

[3:02:51] of this project is going to

[3:02:51] include substantial public

[3:02:52] infrastructure improvements to

[3:02:58] the city namely 60 Street, 62

[3:03:01] Street and likely 63 and

[3:03:01] present condition looks like

[3:03:02] that And that's what we've been

[3:03:06] seeing for years with this

[3:03:06] community.

[3:03:07] This is a situation that right

[3:03:12] now and staff will confirm does

[3:03:13] not meet all the safety

[3:03:14] requirements of the city namely

[3:03:14] site distance.

[3:03:18] Next slide please.

[3:03:19] What we plan on doing with our

[3:03:22] proposal is to improve 60

[3:03:23] Street and widen 60th Street by

[3:03:23] 18ft.

[3:03:27] This will give us the ability

[3:03:28] to provide sidewalks, provide

[3:03:33] dog trails, provide curb

[3:03:34] separated landscaping and of

[3:03:39] course drainage facilities.

[3:03:40] This will be representative of

[3:03:40] what we believe is a great

[3:03:45] entry to this community and

[3:03:45] enjoyed by all of

[3:03:46] the community.

[3:03:50] Next slide please.

[3:03:51] This is a quick diagram that

[3:03:57] shows the tree section of 60

[3:03:57] Street.

[3:03:58] It's a little small so I'm not

[3:03:58] expecting you to look at that.

[3:04:02] But what we're trying to show

[3:04:03] here is that there is no

[3:04:03] question that the community has

[3:04:08] not have a great record for

[3:04:08] sidewalks there does not have a

[3:04:13] great planning from decades ago

[3:04:14] And we hear that loud and

[3:04:14] clear.

[3:04:15] What we're trying to represent

[3:04:18] here is what we are being

[3:04:19] required to provide in terms of

[3:04:19] what the city policies and

[3:04:24] guidelines require and we are

[3:04:25] providing that next slide and

[3:04:29] we should make a quick notation

[3:04:30] that we're very proud.

[3:04:30] The purpose of why we're here

[3:04:34] our proposal is to provide

[3:04:35] homeownership generational

[3:04:35] wealth.

[3:04:36] We're here to provide

[3:04:40] opportunities for all.

[3:04:41] And in doing that we're

[3:04:41] presenting four distinct

[3:04:42] architectural plans doing

[3:04:46] Craftsman traditional.

[3:04:47] It just goes to show that what

[3:04:48] we're trying to do here is

[3:04:51] bring homeownership that's

[3:04:52] compatible with the existing

[3:04:52] neighborhood.

[3:04:56] We're proud of those And we

[3:04:57] think that the city should be

[3:04:58] proud of this And we know

[3:04:58] the folks behind me won't

[3:05:02] support this.

[3:05:03] But home ownership shouldn't be

[3:05:03] a privilege.

[3:05:07] It should be a right and it

[3:05:08] should be something afforded to

[3:05:08] everyone.

[3:05:09] And we believe wholeheartedly

[3:05:13] that we're part of that

[3:05:14] objective in the city of San

[3:05:14] Diego.

[3:05:18] Next slide.

[3:05:19] >> The very beginning of this

[3:05:20] proposal and I will describe in

[3:05:23] very detail here in a moment we

[3:05:28] started our community outreach

[3:05:28] nearly four years ago a year in

[3:05:33] advance of technically a formal

[3:05:33] review by the city.

[3:05:34] We were introduced and we

[3:05:38] became very involved with a

[3:05:39] wide variety of interest groups

[3:05:39] and organizations.

[3:05:43] Aside from the pioneer Group

[3:05:44] and the local Emerald Hills

[3:05:45] neighborhood group, we became

[3:05:49] very close with the National

[3:05:49] Black Contractors Association

[3:05:53] and why we want to bring jobs

[3:05:54] to the community.

[3:05:55] We heard loud and clear from

[3:05:59] this association We want jobs

[3:06:00] in San Diego.

[3:06:03] Do not give our jobs away to

[3:06:04] outside counties.

[3:06:05] So we became members of this

[3:06:09] association and we're acting on

[3:06:09] that commitment.

[3:06:10] The National Association of

[3:06:10] Real Estate Brokers they're not

[3:06:14] just brokers.

[3:06:15] They're folks who have devoted

[3:06:15] themselves to this culture and

[3:06:20] to this community and to

[3:06:20] the betterment of fair housing

[3:06:21] for all.

[3:06:24] No, they're just not brokers.

[3:06:25] They're not just real estate

[3:06:25] agents.

[3:06:26] They're advocates.

[3:06:29] And I believe that we are very

[3:06:30] proud to be part of that

[3:06:31] organization and we work very

[3:06:35] closely with Nerad and we are

[3:06:36] going to continue our

[3:06:40] relationship beyond hopeful

[3:06:40] approval of this project.

[3:06:41] We believe and what their their

[3:06:45] objectives are And we stand

[3:06:46] firm with their commitment.

[3:06:49] We've made notation with San

[3:06:50] Diego County Urban League that

[3:06:51] most importantly is meeting

[3:06:55] with homeowners, meeting with

[3:06:56] individuals like Kenny Keys.

[3:06:59] I like Kenny Keys.

[3:07:00] He's invited me to his living

[3:07:00] room.

[3:07:01] I don't realize me now but we

[3:07:04] started out as friends but we

[3:07:05] started out opening up a

[3:07:05] dialog.

[3:07:09] Next slide please.

[3:07:10] We opened up a dialog

[3:07:10] represented by this diagram

[3:07:14] here.

[3:07:15] This is a process and a

[3:07:19] timeline and I'll briefly go

[3:07:19] through It is pretty amazing.

[3:07:23] As I said earlier, we spent

[3:07:24] the first 12 months working

[3:07:25] with the planning area group

[3:07:28] and the neighborhood council

[3:07:28] groups.

[3:07:29] We went to neighborhoods, we

[3:07:30] went to living rooms We had

[3:07:34] conducted meetings not required

[3:07:34] not required by the applicant.

[3:07:39] We volunteered to get ourselves

[3:07:43] out in front of the issues 12

[3:07:43] months in fact don't say we

[3:07:44] didn't do our best.

[3:07:48] The community outreach because

[3:07:48] the next steps included meeting

[3:07:52] with individual homeowners.

[3:07:53] We finally get to a point where

[3:07:54] the city blessed all of our

[3:07:58] paperwork, all of our reports

[3:07:58] and then we began.

[3:07:59] The next step was the formal

[3:08:03] review of the city staff.

[3:08:04] 24 months later we end up

[3:08:07] applying to Commission Planning

[3:08:08] Commission as we heard approved

[3:08:12] this project.

[3:08:12] Seven No unanimous

[3:08:16] recommendation or can you

[3:08:17] please of that That was not

[3:08:21] that's not an easy feat and

[3:08:21] that means they supported

[3:08:22] the technical aspects of

[3:08:22] everything that your staff

[3:08:26] worked very hard over a period

[3:08:27] of years to bring forth.

[3:08:31] They reviewed all the technical

[3:08:31] aspects and I don't need to be

[3:08:32] redundant that moving from that

[3:08:35] point did we stop our community

[3:08:36] outreach just because we got

[3:08:37] planning commission approval?

[3:08:40] No, we did not.

[3:08:40] We continued.

[3:08:44] We continue to meet with

[3:08:45] various individuals with also

[3:08:49] the plenary group and

[3:08:50] the environmental neighborhood

[3:08:50] group.

[3:08:54] We met at coffee shops.

[3:08:55] We met with folks pro and

[3:08:55] against.

[3:08:55] We stuck with it.

[3:08:59] We did not walk away from our

[3:09:00] passionate D.R. Horton which is

[3:09:04] to provide quality home

[3:09:04] ownership to the city of San

[3:09:05] Diego.

[3:09:08] We could have walked and many

[3:09:09] competitors would've said

[3:09:09] Forget this madness.

[3:09:10] We're out of here.

[3:09:13] We stuck by our guns and these

[3:09:14] people behind me, they know

[3:09:18] that.

[3:09:18] Do they like me?

[3:09:19] Probably not.

[3:09:22] But they can't say for a moment

[3:09:23] that we did not do our business

[3:09:27] in terms of community outreach

[3:09:27] .

[3:09:31] Now we're here actually.

[3:09:32] >> We're here not just to

[3:09:37] represent another home

[3:09:37] proposal.

[3:09:41] We are proud that we represent

[3:09:42] 18 over 18 land use policies

[3:09:43] established by this city.

[3:09:47] We're proud of that.

[3:09:48] Next slide.

[3:09:48] We're proud that we were able

[3:09:51] to comply with a number of

[3:09:52] very, very technical policies.

[3:09:53] But I particularly proud of

[3:09:56] what I've highlighted here in

[3:09:56] yellow.

[3:09:57] The top one and I bring

[3:10:00] emphasis to it.

[3:10:01] We're helping the city of San

[3:10:04] Diego with their goal of

[3:10:05] reaching over 109,000

[3:10:06] residences of which you've

[3:10:09] achieved a lot over 36,000

[3:10:10] homes.

[3:10:10] Well, aren't 23 doesn't seem

[3:10:13] like a big number.

[3:10:14] Every home counts.

[3:10:18] And I'm going to quote one of

[3:10:18] your council members I can't

[3:10:19] remember who it was but it

[3:10:23] resonated with me.

[3:10:24] And you can raise your hand if

[3:10:24] you recognize this quote.

[3:10:27] Every new front door built in

[3:10:28] the city of San Diego affords

[3:10:32] an opportunity for a family to

[3:10:33] walk in and that is our

[3:10:34] passionate D.R. Horton and

[3:10:37] we're pleased to share that

[3:10:37] passion with that city that

[3:10:38] moving forward we have another

[3:10:42] land use policy It directs

[3:10:42] the city to efficiently use on

[3:10:47] Remain property for residential

[3:10:48] use at a minimum at densely

[3:10:52] stated and the code.

[3:10:52] We appreciate that that

[3:10:53] the last one I think has really

[3:10:56] good.

[3:10:57] Simply provide homeownership to

[3:11:01] all to young big families and

[3:11:02] small families bring

[3:11:04] homeownership to a wide variety

[3:11:04] of folks.

[3:11:09] >> Next slide please.

[3:11:10] >> Early on we were challenged

[3:11:11] with compatibility and this

[3:11:15] chart was produced by empirical

[3:11:17] data and it clearly shows west

[3:11:18] of 60th Street.

[3:11:23] 86% of the existing laws are

[3:11:24] under 10,000ft.

[3:11:27] 50% are between 5 and 6000ft.

[3:11:31] There is no question that our

[3:11:32] law sizes our architecture, our

[3:11:36] homes and our community are

[3:11:37] very much compatible with

[3:11:37] the existing community.

[3:11:40] And let me say this for

[3:11:41] the record building infill

[3:11:41] development is one of

[3:11:42] the toughest types of

[3:11:45] development any developer can

[3:11:46] experience because we have to

[3:11:51] listen to the community.

[3:11:52] We have to pay attention to

[3:11:52] the rules and regulations.

[3:11:53] We have to draw up our

[3:11:56] proposals to be compatible.

[3:11:57] That's not an easy feat But we

[3:12:01] started months in advance by

[3:12:02] photo documenting the existing

[3:12:03] neighborhoods so that we could

[3:12:05] produce a project compatible.

[3:12:10] Next slide please.

[3:12:11] >> One of the more prominent

[3:12:15] issues raised of this project

[3:12:16] has been drainage and I will

[3:12:20] not go into the level of

[3:12:20] technical levels But I will say

[3:12:21] this.

[3:12:25] Think of our project as a

[3:12:25] tabletop in your home.

[3:12:29] The existing condition which is

[3:12:34] uncontrolled drainage flowing

[3:12:35] off the north, the south and

[3:12:35] the west slopes.

[3:12:39] When I say uncontrolled there

[3:12:39] is no measures to collect

[3:12:40] drainage.

[3:12:44] Presently that's not what we're

[3:12:44] doing.

[3:12:45] >> Through the review of your

[3:12:48] city staff they have approved

[3:12:49] our drainage plan which reduces

[3:12:56] the flows by upwards of 86% on

[3:12:58] the south, 84% on the north and

[3:13:01] up to 84% to the west.

[3:13:02] How do we do that?

[3:13:06] It's real simple.

[3:13:07] The same tabletop we now have

[3:13:11] streets curb gutter and we have

[3:13:12] bio filter basins on site to

[3:13:16] collect the water.

[3:13:17] The water then is collected and

[3:13:21] disposed into city cisterns.

[3:13:22] We met the requirement that we

[3:13:25] stop at Midland.

[3:13:26] Just a requirement with this

[3:13:26] community.

[3:13:27] No we did not.

[3:13:31] We continued to say Let's go

[3:13:31] further.

[3:13:35] And by that I listened to Kenny

[3:13:35] Keyes.

[3:13:36] I listened in his neighborhood.

[3:13:37] I listened to his neighbors and

[3:13:41] they didn't like what was done

[3:13:41] years ago.

[3:13:45] They had a culvert installed in

[3:13:45] their private backyards not

[3:13:50] maintained and they were

[3:13:50] fearful that this project would

[3:13:51] inundate their project.

[3:13:51] Not true.

[3:13:55] We agreed that we would install

[3:13:56] yet another village so that

[3:14:00] whatever remnant water would

[3:14:01] come off that would be

[3:14:02] intercepted by that ditch.

[3:14:05] We weren't required to do that

[3:14:05] but we are doing that.

[3:14:06] And by the way, we're

[3:14:09] maintaining it.

[3:14:09] Not the city.

[3:14:10] Not the community.

[3:14:14] Our hoa The same holds true for

[3:14:15] the North.

[3:14:15] They have a little different

[3:14:16] situation.

[3:14:19] They actually have an inlet

[3:14:20] system that collects the water

[3:14:21] and disposed it into the system

[3:14:24] which good for the south.

[3:14:24] It's good for the north.

[3:14:25] We're doing the same there.

[3:14:28] My point is in conclusion on

[3:14:29] drainage we're improving

[3:14:29] substantially.

[3:14:33] The drainage conditions and

[3:14:34] we're proud of that.

[3:14:38] Next slide.

[3:14:42] In conclusion, I want to take a

[3:14:43] moment to talk a little bit

[3:14:46] about the company I worked for

[3:14:47] for 27 years and I'm proud of

[3:14:47] that.

[3:14:51] But I'm more proud of John

[3:14:52] Horton who founded our company

[3:14:56] with a few dollars in his

[3:14:57] pocket.

[3:14:57] He was raised in a home with no

[3:15:01] utilities, no water, no sewage

[3:15:01] .

[3:15:02] They were so poor that they

[3:15:03] had to live on top of a

[3:15:07] jailhouse county jailhouse with

[3:15:07] his siblings.

[3:15:08] His mother made $0.50 a meal.

[3:15:11] Do not tell me that anyone with

[3:15:15] a golden spoon at D.R. Horton.

[3:15:16] We work with some of

[3:15:17] the greatest team members of

[3:15:17] our company and he grew that

[3:15:21] company today under one thing

[3:15:21] and one thing only.

[3:15:26] He remodeled a small house in

[3:15:26] Arkansas and he felt so much

[3:15:27] pleasure.

[3:15:30] He would bring home ownership

[3:15:31] experiences to many that single

[3:15:36] man with not a couple of

[3:15:37] hundred bucks in his pocket and

[3:15:40] a cell phone the size of our

[3:15:40] shoe grew.

[3:15:41] A company to be the largest

[3:15:43] homebuilding company in

[3:15:48] the United States.

[3:15:49] >> I wish that man well And his

[3:15:53] dream today lives with all of

[3:15:53] our employees lives with me And

[3:15:57] I'm sharing that wonderful

[3:15:58] experience with you because I

[3:15:58] know this city to appreciate

[3:16:02] homeownership.

[3:16:03] It's a thrill And I'm not going

[3:16:07] to take anything away from

[3:16:07] the opposition.

[3:16:08] >> And in closing, everyone

[3:16:12] deserves homeownership in

[3:16:13] the city of San Diego.

[3:16:13] Thank you very much.

[3:16:14] I will be available for

[3:16:14] questions.

[3:16:15] All right.

[3:16:16] Thank you.

[3:16:17] So with that we've now heard

[3:16:18] from the appellant, we've heard

[3:16:21] from the applicant and we will

[3:16:22] proceed with public comment and

[3:16:26] I will extend a courtesy as

[3:16:27] council PRESIDENT And invite

[3:16:29] supervisor Monica Montgomery

[3:16:37] Step to start off.

[3:16:42] >> I believe you requested five

[3:16:42] minutes.

[3:16:42] Yes.

[3:16:43] And someone left their phone up

[3:16:47] here So if I okay.

[3:16:48] >> Thank you so much Council

[3:16:49] PRESIDENT And thank you for

[3:16:52] allowing me to speak.

[3:16:52] I am here to speak today in

[3:16:53] strong support of the project

[3:16:56] that we are discussing here

[3:16:57] today and I'm asking the City

[3:17:01] Council to deny the appeal.

[3:17:02] I support this project because

[3:17:05] it will enhance the community

[3:17:05] of District four and provide an

[3:17:06] opportunity for first time

[3:17:09] homebuyers throughout San Diego

[3:17:10] which is very rare these days.

[3:17:14] The project contains 123 single

[3:17:14] family homes and that means

[3:17:17] there will be 123 families that

[3:17:18] will be able to provide a home

[3:17:18] for their children.

[3:17:22] A family legacy and family

[3:17:23] stability like my grandmother

[3:17:27] did for her children albeit in

[3:17:27] the latter years of her life.

[3:17:28] And like my mom and dad did for

[3:17:29] their children.

[3:17:32] My motivation in supporting

[3:17:33] this project lies in

[3:17:33] the principle that I want

[3:17:34] others to have access to

[3:17:37] the same opportunity that I had

[3:17:38] in life a chance to grow up in

[3:17:42] a home that I knew would always

[3:17:43] be there for me to dwell in.

[3:17:43] The project also abuts

[3:17:47] the Emerald Hills Neighborhood

[3:17:47] park and includes four pocket

[3:17:48] parks on the property along

[3:17:51] with the widening of 50th

[3:17:52] Street which I've driven down

[3:17:52] almost my entire life And it

[3:17:56] has never changed.

[3:17:57] 500 trees beautiful landscaping

[3:18:00] 13 affordable rate homes on

[3:18:01] site water quality treatment

[3:18:02] facilities, public pedestrian

[3:18:06] circulation and trails and a

[3:18:06] secondary vehicle emergency

[3:18:07] access drive.

[3:18:10] Many of these amenities were

[3:18:10] added at the request of

[3:18:11] community members and the ideas

[3:18:16] came from community to discuss

[3:18:17] and that the District Court

[3:18:17] office insisted on and the D.R.

[3:18:20] Horton engaged in.

[3:18:21] When I ran for the city council

[3:18:22] office I knocked on a lot of

[3:18:25] doors in my community and

[3:18:26] the feedback was consistent.

[3:18:26] My neighbors wanted more

[3:18:30] economic opportunities.

[3:18:31] We know that a big part of

[3:18:31] economic and economic

[3:18:35] opportunities are homes

[3:18:36] especially these types of

[3:18:36] homes.

[3:18:40] They provide more customers for

[3:18:40] neighborhood businesses and

[3:18:41] increase their property tax

[3:18:41] base.

[3:18:45] I also distinctly remember

[3:18:45] hosting a forum and discussing

[3:18:46] Measure a an affordable housing

[3:18:50] bond measure that was on

[3:18:50] the ballot in 2020.

[3:18:51] One community member challenged

[3:18:54] me at that form and asked me

[3:18:55] why does the focus always stay

[3:18:56] on low income housing?

[3:19:00] What opportunity These are

[3:19:00] there for those of us who want

[3:19:01] to own a home one day.

[3:19:04] Those words stuck with me.

[3:19:05] And during my time as a city

[3:19:06] council member the District

[3:19:09] four office prioritized

[3:19:10] homeownership by way of first

[3:19:10] time homebuyer programs,

[3:19:14] downpayment assistance and

[3:19:15] credit repair programs through

[3:19:15] the Reinvestment Task Force

[3:19:16] which I co-chaired.

[3:19:19] We became one of only eight

[3:19:20] cities in the entire nation to

[3:19:23] receive a Wells Fargo Worth

[3:19:24] grant to supplement our

[3:19:25] downpayment assistance programs

[3:19:28] at the San Diego Housing

[3:19:29] Commission.

[3:19:29] This project puts that advocacy

[3:19:30] into action.

[3:19:34] It makes what we do real and

[3:19:34] tangible, not abstract.

[3:19:35] That's why I strongly support

[3:19:38] the project.

[3:19:39] Footnote seven is being used as

[3:19:41] a pretext for people who one

[3:19:42] wants to demean the current

[3:19:43] leadership and to don't want

[3:19:46] this project in their backyard

[3:19:47] .

[3:19:47] I understand that everyone has

[3:19:48] a right to feel the way that

[3:19:51] they feel and I acknowledge

[3:19:52] that.

[3:19:52] What has been disappointing is

[3:19:53] the lack of professionalism,

[3:19:57] harassment and lack of ability

[3:19:57] to hold a decent fact based

[3:20:01] conversation about this project

[3:20:01] and other issues in our

[3:20:02] community.

[3:20:03] That's why I thought it was

[3:20:03] important for me to come here

[3:20:04] today.

[3:20:06] I want to address my role

[3:20:07] community sentiment and images

[3:20:11] like this that are deeply

[3:20:16] rooted in racist history and

[3:20:17] use as a humiliation tactic

[3:20:17] that have been promoted by

[3:20:21] the opposition.

[3:20:21] I thank the Council for

[3:20:22] repealing Footnote seven.

[3:20:25] I sat in that seat and voted

[3:20:26] for the land use code updates

[3:20:27] that included Footnote seven.

[3:20:29] Back in 2019 At that time

[3:20:30] community feedback though

[3:20:34] limited supported the function

[3:20:34] of the footnote to reduce

[3:20:38] the minimum large lot size

[3:20:39] because they knew it would

[3:20:40] drive economic opportunity.

[3:20:44] They also understood the impact

[3:20:44] of large lot size minimums

[3:20:45] keeping hardworking people of

[3:20:50] color out of neighborhood aid.

[3:20:50] >> However, I do agree that

[3:20:51] minimum large sizes should be

[3:20:54] reduced in the additional seven

[3:20:55] San Diego neighborhoods out of

[3:20:59] over 100 that it still exists

[3:21:00] in so that there is no

[3:21:00] neighborhood in San Diego that

[3:21:04] have minimum lot sizes of

[3:21:04] 20,000ft.

[3:21:05] Because history tells us that

[3:21:09] lot sizes of that magnitude are

[3:21:09] wrapped up in inherent racist

[3:21:10] land use policies that have

[3:21:14] been used over our country's

[3:21:15] and our city's history to keep

[3:21:18] people of color out of certain

[3:21:19] neighborhoods.

[3:21:20] So the question becomes while I

[3:21:23] support a policy in any

[3:21:24] neighborhood especially my own

[3:21:24] that has been used against

[3:21:28] black people like me.

[3:21:29] And the answer is I wouldn't

[3:21:29] and I won't.

[3:21:29] Not now.

[3:21:30] Not ever.

[3:21:33] And why would anyone produce

[3:21:34] and promote demeaning images

[3:21:35] across the Internet Because of

[3:21:38] racist undertones The same

[3:21:39] process undertones that exist

[3:21:40] in large lot size minimums.

[3:21:43] So if you know your history it

[3:21:43] makes sense If you don't.

[3:21:46] I hope you learn it today to

[3:21:47] close this project is for

[3:21:47] the future.

[3:21:48] The future is now.

[3:21:49] We are charged to provide a

[3:21:52] vision for the city.

[3:21:53] I envision a city where every

[3:21:53] person have a roof over their

[3:21:57] head and provide for their

[3:21:57] families.

[3:21:58] This project is a part of that

[3:21:58] vision.

[3:21:59] Please vote no on the pill.

[3:22:03] Thank you for your time.

[3:22:09] >> All right.

[3:22:09] Thank you.

[3:22:10] Council Supervisor Molly

[3:22:13] Montgomery step for taking time

[3:22:14] out of your busy day.

[3:22:15] So with that we will now

[3:22:18] proceed with the rest of

[3:22:19] the public comment.

[3:22:20] And our city clerk will explain

[3:22:27] the steps going forward and you

[3:22:28] know, you've been pretty well

[3:22:28] behaved.

[3:22:29] We're going to conduct

[3:22:29] ourselves with civility.

[3:22:32] You're going to hear things you

[3:22:32] like.

[3:22:33] You're going to hear things you

[3:22:33] don't like, maybe even a.

[3:22:36] But I think everybody's had a

[3:22:37] we want to hear from everybody

[3:22:38] whatever your point of view is

[3:22:41] and I think we can conduct

[3:22:42] the rest of the hearing with

[3:22:43] civility going forward.

[3:22:49] I think that'll be I mean you

[3:22:53] throw that out there.

[3:22:54] >> Okay.

[3:22:54] Do you want to challenge

[3:22:58] the disruption of that I

[3:22:58] outlined at the beginning?

[3:22:59] Let's let people speak.

[3:23:02] You MAY agree you MAY disagree

[3:23:03] .

[3:23:03] It is disruption of the meeting

[3:23:04] that I am particularly focused

[3:23:07] on.

[3:23:08] That's been my credo for

[3:23:09] the year and a half that I've

[3:23:10] been honored to be council

[3:23:12] PRESIDENT.

[3:23:13] Let's get on with the meeting.

[3:23:14] We have a lot of talk in front

[3:23:14] of us.

[3:23:16] We have what six group

[3:23:20] presentations So that's a good

[3:23:20] 46 minutes right there plus any

[3:23:21] individual speakers We got a

[3:23:24] long way to go.

[3:23:25] All right, City clerk, please

[3:23:29] explain what happens next.

[3:23:29] Thank you.

[3:23:30] Council PRESIDENT For

[3:23:31] the record I would also like to

[3:23:31] note that this item received 28

[3:23:34] comments in favor and four

[3:23:35] comments in opposition b r e

[3:23:36] comment form which have been

[3:23:38] distributed to the Council.

[3:23:39] We will begin the public

[3:23:40] comment period with organized

[3:23:40] presentations that were

[3:23:43] submitted via the city's

[3:23:44] organized presentation web form

[3:23:45] An organized presentation

[3:23:48] requires all listed participant

[3:23:49] to be present and raise their

[3:23:50] hand if all participants are

[3:23:52] not present or do not raise

[3:23:53] their hand, the allotted time

[3:23:54] MAY be reduced accordingly we

[3:23:58] will begin with in-person

[3:23:58] organized presentations and as

[3:23:59] noted earlier we only received

[3:24:03] in-person requests.

[3:24:04] >> There are no virtual

[3:24:04] organized presentations today.

[3:24:08] You make sure that people who

[3:24:08] signed up stay number of

[3:24:09] people.

[3:24:12] Yes If you did sign up I will

[3:24:12] be calling your name when that

[3:24:13] organized lead presenter comes

[3:24:17] up and you need to raise your

[3:24:18] hand at that time If you are

[3:24:18] not here at that time the time

[3:24:22] of the lead presenter will be

[3:24:22] minimized.

[3:24:23] We will be starting with Hazel

[3:24:26] Higgins.

[3:24:27] Hazel Higgins If you can come

[3:24:31] up to the microphone you have

[3:24:32] Michael Sowers and Billy Carter

[3:24:36] that are on your participant

[3:24:36] list.

[3:24:37] Can they raise your hand?

[3:24:40] One is Michael Solis Are you

[3:24:41] Michael's?

[3:24:44] I was Billy Carter one of your

[3:24:45] speaker.

[3:24:54] I only see one hand raised.

[3:24:55] I'll ask Kenny he Victoria

[3:24:59] Brazeau, Andrea Head Tara, Mary

[3:25:03] Young and Thomas Melanie to

[3:25:04] please all come up to

[3:25:05] the yellow reserved seats at

[3:25:08] the front of the room for Hazel

[3:25:09] you have Michael and Billy

[3:25:09] Carter.

[3:25:12] I still only see those two

[3:25:17] Michael and Billy Okay you'll

[3:25:17] have three minutes.

[3:25:18] Please proceed before you

[3:25:18] start.

[3:25:21] I'm sorry you don't have to

[3:25:22] come up If you're seating your

[3:25:22] time to the organized

[3:25:23] presentation you can stay

[3:25:26] seated and stay comfortable If

[3:25:27] you want to come up and join

[3:25:28] the speakers you're welcome to

[3:25:28] do that.

[3:25:29] >> But you don't need to.

[3:25:31] I just need you to raise your

[3:25:32] hand And my apologies for

[3:25:39] jumping in but please proceed.

[3:25:39] You want me to begin?

[3:25:40] Yes, please.

[3:25:40] Thank you.

[3:25:43] My name is Hazel Higgins.

[3:25:44] It is ironic that some 47 years

[3:25:48] ago I stood in this council

[3:25:49] chambers to request that

[3:25:53] the designated adopted open

[3:25:54] space abutting this property

[3:25:59] not be allowed to take away our

[3:26:02] open space car out of use and a

[3:26:03] mobile home park was predicate

[3:26:07] was there that was designated

[3:26:08] for the designated adopted open

[3:26:09] space abutting this property

[3:26:13] and the 70s and 60s the Encanto

[3:26:14] task force petitioned the city

[3:26:18] to rezone certain Encanto

[3:26:22] properties r 110 r 115 r 120 We

[3:26:22] asked for that.

[3:26:26] >> That's where we lived.

[3:26:27] >> We wanted our lawyer.

[3:26:28] We wanted our Point Loma and

[3:26:31] our community.

[3:26:32] >> We asked for their I'm black

[3:26:36] is black can be I asked for

[3:26:40] that with the Encanto test

[3:26:41] force I'm 88 years old not dead

[3:26:46] yet Most of my friends are

[3:26:51] cannot speak against what

[3:26:52] the previous speaker said We

[3:26:52] asked for that.

[3:26:55] We asked for 120 an r 120 lots

[3:26:59] because we wanted big lots as

[3:26:59] open space CHAIRMAN When

[3:27:00] Proposition c was passed at

[3:27:04] Witness for p r these

[3:27:05] immediately submitted for our

[3:27:09] designated adopted open space

[3:27:10] like these fine people who want

[3:27:14] to help us I wish they would

[3:27:15] quit helping us in

[3:27:19] the Southeast community.

[3:27:23] My credibility is substantiated

[3:27:24] by MR. Jan Kosky and

[3:27:24] the Association of Government.

[3:27:29] He writes me a letter thanking

[3:27:30] me for my input as open space

[3:27:30] CHAIRMAN.

[3:27:34] He's tells me he could not have

[3:27:34] completed his projects without

[3:27:38] my input.

[3:27:39] >> Juan talk about Card not

[3:27:43] abuse which abuts this

[3:27:43] property.

[3:27:44] The site was an Indian burial

[3:27:48] burial ground.

[3:27:48] It was designated adopted open

[3:27:53] space through property agency

[3:27:58] It boasted 550 endangered Cox

[3:27:59] by our cactus that were birds

[3:28:02] of many species and when it was

[3:28:07] presented for open space two

[3:28:10] for purchase it appraised $2

[3:28:11] million 5.39 acres in southeast

[3:28:15] San Diego.

[3:28:20] My property was like 12 to

[3:28:20] $20,000 for an acre but this

[3:28:21] property so that we could not

[3:28:24] price ourselves out of this

[3:28:28] open space appraised at $1

[3:28:29] million So the city did not buy

[3:28:32] that land.

[3:28:36] That land was lost worth 5.39

[3:28:37] acres of designated adopted

[3:28:38] open space and the community

[3:28:42] plan if there is an

[3:28:43] environmental impact report.

[3:28:43] >> Thank you for that

[3:28:47] concluding comment that does

[3:28:47] include your time for

[3:28:48] the organization mutation.

[3:28:51] Next we have Kenny Key If

[3:28:52] the following individuals can

[3:28:53] please raise their hand Daryl

[3:28:56] Johnson.

[3:28:57] Daryl Johnson I don't see a

[3:29:01] Gerald Johnson raising his

[3:29:01] hand.

[3:29:05] Stephanie Overstreet.

[3:29:06] Stephanie Overstreet I don't

[3:29:11] see a Stephanie Overstreet

[3:29:11] raising her hand.

[3:29:14] Darlene Simmons thank you.

[3:29:20] Kathy Caraway Thank you.

[3:29:20] Carl Davis.

[3:29:25] Carl Davis I don't see a Carl

[3:29:29] Davis raising his hand.

[3:29:30] Cynthia Santos thank you.

[3:29:35] And Joseph step Thank you.

[3:29:38] That is five minutes and you

[3:29:39] have your presentation that

[3:29:39] will go up.

[3:29:44] >> Yeah, because you're going

[3:29:45] to start the time Once I start

[3:29:45] talking I wouldn't play that.

[3:29:47] Okay, we'll play it.

[3:29:48] But I just want to say well

[3:29:52] it's playing that I wish I had

[3:29:58] that much energy from Super

[3:29:59] card supervisor for us No

[3:30:02] communities I just don't

[3:30:03] understand how she's being so

[3:30:07] aggressive and for developer

[3:30:08] that blew me away People out

[3:30:08] there watch this video.

[3:30:14] This is the this is not just

[3:30:14] Kenny this is a bunch of us one

[3:30:15] representing as part of this

[3:30:17] organization It was founded

[3:30:18] because of pushback time for

[3:30:21] this crazy developer yelling

[3:30:22] please you guys I want you guys

[3:30:26] to weigh in with us and connect

[3:30:27] with us.

[3:30:27] This is an election year Today

[3:30:30] I stand before you not just as

[3:30:31] a resident, not just as a

[3:30:32] veteran, not just as a

[3:30:35] community advocate.

[3:30:35] I stand here as someone

[3:30:36] fighting for future generations

[3:30:40] because this land is more than

[3:30:40] dirt.

[3:30:41] It is more than real estate.

[3:30:42] It is a diamond in the heart of

[3:30:47] San Diego.

[3:30:48] Shame yourself.

[3:30:49] No it is Monica who is

[3:30:51] possessed conspiring with

[3:30:51] the horn ball questions Be

[3:30:52] transparent to push this

[3:30:56] through.

[3:30:57] It was asking us to put Node

[3:30:58] seven No no to change it only

[3:31:03] to get this project It was

[3:31:03] changed.

[3:31:04] We had no say in these

[3:31:04] questions.

[3:31:05] Okay hold on Wait Before you

[3:31:07] put t on a target five year to

[3:31:07] come up here Finally things

[3:31:08] that should concern every

[3:31:10] resident of San Diego.

[3:31:11] Now you got covered up.

[3:31:15] What political party Smith This

[3:31:16] is the last chance for us.

[3:31:18] I was gonna grab one.

[3:31:19] This was last week.

[3:31:25] We got this ridiculous that we

[3:31:26] now were told not time was far

[3:31:26] as you guys just keep

[3:31:27] dismissing or saying we've got

[3:31:30] to eliminate everything was

[3:31:30] repealed within 2000ft of this

[3:31:31] prize Footnote seven was how

[3:31:36] you got I don't say you care

[3:31:37] about our kids Our streets are

[3:31:38] safe to three one bending over

[3:31:38] backwards to make some kind

[3:31:41] fair questions.

[3:31:41] >> Those are reasonable

[3:31:42] questions Housing policy should

[3:31:43] not be dictated back to have

[3:31:47] answered promise Did this

[3:31:47] company accept The company

[3:31:52] didn't elect me.

[3:31:53] We elected You represent us.

[3:31:54] How dare you dismiss Mr.

[3:31:54] Forbes?

[3:31:55] What do you feel?

[3:31:56] Controversy.

[3:31:56] You don't need to be reelected.

[3:32:01] We got somebody else demanding

[3:32:01] that cares about us.

[3:32:02] >> The Are you proven Could

[3:32:02] have shown your hand.

[3:32:05] All of you got themselves

[3:32:06] caught every year And in

[3:32:06] NOVEMBER we're going to deal

[3:32:10] with Joe Land is gone.

[3:32:11] It is up for election.

[3:32:12] We're going to deal with Joe

[3:32:12] for dismissing us.

[3:32:15] This is ridiculous.

[3:32:15] We should not be fighting.

[3:32:16] You got money, money, money,

[3:32:20] money.

[3:32:21] >> What is this promise?

[3:32:21] Let's be honest.

[3:32:27] Do you Ivory Coast But San

[3:32:29] Diego That's what we want.

[3:32:30] >> Imagine bending over

[3:32:35] backwards for this developer

[3:32:36] for Park Imagine Observation

[3:32:39] Towers is our vision City

[3:32:40] Imagine museum You refuse to

[3:32:40] look at it.

[3:32:44] You refuse to show it on tv.

[3:32:44] Imagine you show your

[3:32:45] television audience for

[3:32:49] the last four years and

[3:32:50] community events We got to

[3:32:50] fight our COUNCILMAN That

[3:32:53] kicked me out of your office

[3:32:54] disrespect me publicly and my

[3:32:58] mother never apologized to

[3:32:59] the people of San Diego.

[3:32:59] Yeah.

[3:33:00] You apologize to me.

[3:33:00] Yes.

[3:33:03] That we deserve way better

[3:33:04] raise city's And I should not

[3:33:05] be arguing You should be

[3:33:08] focused on his because I love

[3:33:09] him Hills And this is a $100

[3:33:10] million property in revenues a

[3:33:13] year younger Watching your

[3:33:14] Hawks blueprint think getting

[3:33:18] your no money no return We need

[3:33:18] long term investment in South

[3:33:23] San Diego you know, minus my

[3:33:23] money.

[3:33:38] >> Oh Earth you guys this is a

[3:33:39] puppet show we watch on their

[3:33:39] screens.

[3:33:40] >> Think about We are tired.

[3:33:40] It's his puppet show Represent

[3:33:42] us Stand for the will of

[3:33:43] the people D.R. Horton So deep

[3:33:47] now we're told to watch as

[3:33:47] these applications were deemed

[3:33:48] complete stupidity was repeat

[3:33:53] of our answer like

[3:33:53] the footnotes Look at our

[3:33:54] vision Why was it repealed?

[3:33:58] >> Give us some Look at us what

[3:33:58] you see how long we've been

[3:33:59] coming in here And it's

[3:34:02] the same question now keep

[3:34:03] dismissing me those questions

[3:34:05] the years I've lived up to 50

[3:34:06] years simply because I'm

[3:34:11] retired county employee, I'm a

[3:34:12] community activist and I'm

[3:34:16] thinking about kids the future

[3:34:17] in that park, the juggernaut

[3:34:18] economic juggernaut If you guys

[3:34:24] you just open your every last

[3:34:25] one You all need to go out

[3:34:26] there and visit the work.

[3:34:26] Let them go up here.

[3:34:27] Don't they need to go up there

[3:34:28] and didn't have to do take that

[3:34:28] view it and you guys do see how

[3:34:32] you guys almost messed up and

[3:34:32] the diamond to get away from

[3:34:33] San Diego You control

[3:34:38] the permitting process you

[3:34:39] control How are you going to

[3:34:39] say you ain't got the power?

[3:34:42] We don't have developers coming

[3:34:43] in our city telling us what

[3:34:44] they're going to do.

[3:34:44] >> I'm gonna do this here.

[3:34:45] You know they're going to come

[3:34:48] to you for your stop bound over

[3:34:49] to them and we're begging you

[3:34:52] to stop it.

[3:34:53] >> Thank you for that

[3:34:54] concluding comment.

[3:34:57] Next is Victoria La Rosa

[3:34:58] Victoria you have Time City you

[3:34:59] have the participants.

[3:35:02] >> I'm going to get that out of

[3:35:03] my mouth.

[3:35:04] Participants listed are William

[3:35:08] Crookes and Paul Kruger.

[3:35:08] You'll have three minutes.

[3:35:09] Please proceed.

[3:35:09] Thank you.

[3:35:10] Good afternoon.

[3:35:14] Council members Council

[3:35:15] PRESIDENT My name is Victoria

[3:35:16] Lorusso and I'm with the cpc.

[3:35:19] We are commonly today because

[3:35:20] this appeal reveals something

[3:35:20] much larger than the project

[3:35:21] itself.

[3:35:24] It's about confidence in San

[3:35:25] Diego's planning process.

[3:35:25] >> By the time Choice Valley

[3:35:30] cpg began asking fundamental

[3:35:30] questions about Footnote seven

[3:35:35] why it existed, what planning

[3:35:36] purpose it served and why it

[3:35:36] applied to only two

[3:35:37] communities.

[3:35:40] It appears the process for this

[3:35:41] project had already moved too

[3:35:42] far forward to have any impact.

[3:35:46] That's a problem.

[3:35:47] >> Those questions should have

[3:35:48] been answered long before they

[3:35:48] reached this Council and

[3:35:51] demonstrates exactly why CPGs

[3:35:52] remain an essential part of San

[3:35:53] Diego's planning process.

[3:35:57] Footnote seven has become much

[3:35:58] more than a municipal code

[3:35:58] footnote.

[3:36:02] It's become a symbol of

[3:36:03] something many communities are

[3:36:03] increasingly mindful of that

[3:36:08] significant planning policies

[3:36:09] are being developed without

[3:36:09] transparency, without context

[3:36:10] and without making use of

[3:36:15] the industrial knowledge that

[3:36:15] exists within the cities and

[3:36:16] communities.

[3:36:16] If Trails Valley cpg had been

[3:36:21] invited into the process at

[3:36:21] the beginning Yes singled out

[3:36:22] during the Land Development

[3:36:26] Code update that specifically

[3:36:27] affected them.

[3:36:28] Had they been given their seat

[3:36:28] at the table we might not be

[3:36:32] here today.

[3:36:32] Instead the communities to

[3:36:33] the communities This is

[3:36:37] the appearance of a backroom

[3:36:38] deal rather than an open

[3:36:38] transparent process.

[3:36:43] If the policy reflected in

[3:36:43] the footnote seven had instead

[3:36:44] been considered through

[3:36:45] the normal Community plan

[3:36:49] amendment and rezoning process,

[3:36:50] it would have involved a more

[3:36:50] deliberate public discussion

[3:36:55] greater transparency and direct

[3:36:56] council review.

[3:36:56] Yes, this process takes more

[3:36:57] time.

[3:37:01] Yes it cost the applicant more

[3:37:01] money.

[3:37:02] >> But those processes exist

[3:37:02] for a reason.

[3:37:07] They allow communities,

[3:37:08] applicants and the city to work

[3:37:08] through difficult planning

[3:37:09] questions before anyone becomes

[3:37:12] locked into opposing positions.

[3:37:13] Instead we're here today trying

[3:37:18] to answer those questions that

[3:37:18] benefits no one.

[3:37:19] This appeal demonstrates

[3:37:20] the values of CPGs throughout

[3:37:24] this process, Toilet Valley had

[3:37:25] demonstrated thoughtful

[3:37:25] leadership a commitment to

[3:37:26] understanding a complex

[3:37:30] planning issue and a deep sense

[3:37:30] of responsibility to

[3:37:31] the neighbors they were elected

[3:37:31] to represent.

[3:37:36] Community planning groups are

[3:37:36] not simply another opportunity

[3:37:37] for public comment.

[3:37:38] They are the city's established

[3:37:42] community planning bodies.

[3:37:43] They understand the community

[3:37:43] plans.

[3:37:44] They understand their

[3:37:44] neighborhoods.

[3:37:48] A planning process should never

[3:37:48] leave communities asking

[3:37:49] fundamental questions about a

[3:37:50] significant policy only after

[3:37:54] it's too late.

[3:37:55] This is how trust is lost.

[3:37:56] Rebuilding that trust begins

[3:38:00] with giving planning groups a

[3:38:01] seat at the table to the policy

[3:38:02] conversations earlier sharing

[3:38:06] planning context openly and

[3:38:07] making better use of

[3:38:08] the institutional knowledge

[3:38:08] that they provide.

[3:38:09] >> When an appeal raises

[3:38:14] questions that reach beyond one

[3:38:15] project and into the integrity

[3:38:15] of the process that concludes

[3:38:16] those questions deserve our

[3:38:18] time concluded.

[3:38:18] Thank you.

[3:38:25] Andrea had ever Andrea you have

[3:38:25] several people on your

[3:38:26] participant's list.

[3:38:27] If they can please raise their

[3:38:27] hands.

[3:38:31] Can one please raise your hand?

[3:38:37] Maria Conrad Lorna Lucas Thank

[3:38:38] you.

[3:38:38] Alex.

[3:38:42] Don Houston.

[3:38:43] Peter Walden.

[3:38:45] Susan Baldwin.

[3:38:52] >> Paul Paolo.

[3:38:53] Connor Richter.

[3:38:58] Lisa Barron.

[3:38:58] >> Nigel Brooks.

[3:38:59] Margaret Brooks.

[3:39:04] And Scott.

[3:39:05] Dave Nicola.

[3:39:05] Yes.

[3:39:10] Scott Case.

[3:39:10] Mark Santos.

[3:39:17] Event Porter More.

[3:39:18] I do not see a hand for about

[3:39:22] Porter More.

[3:39:22] >> Yvonne Jones.

[3:39:29] Catalina Arena.

[3:39:29] >> Carson Escobar.

[3:39:36] Angel Phoebus or Phoebus.

[3:39:36] And Jeanette Clover.

[3:39:38] You'll have 15 minutes.

[3:39:44] Please proceed Before I begin

[3:39:45] my land use remarks I want to

[3:39:46] preserve one procedural matter

[3:39:46] for the record.

[3:39:50] >> I ask that the Declaration

[3:39:51] attach to all photos excerpted

[3:39:52] from video planning department

[3:39:57] email city clerks JULY six

[3:39:57] email with notice recipient

[3:39:58] lists and written notice and

[3:39:59] due process statement be

[3:39:59] distributed to Council and

[3:40:03] incorporated into the record.

[3:40:03] The underlying video footage

[3:40:04] was submitted into the record

[3:40:07] on Sunday JULY 5th at 8 A.M.

[3:40:08] Consistent with instructions

[3:40:08] provided at the time.

[3:40:13] I have submitted a declaration

[3:40:14] under penalty of perjury

[3:40:15] attesting that the attached

[3:40:15] images were taken from video

[3:40:19] footage recorded on JUNE 29th,

[3:40:19] 2026 after 2:30 P.M. Showing

[3:40:24] the absence of the required

[3:40:24] appeal hearing.

[3:40:25] Not signed at the project site

[3:40:26] at least one day too late by

[3:40:26] law.

[3:40:31] I have also submitted

[3:40:32] the Planning Department email

[3:40:32] stating that correct appeal

[3:40:33] hearing finds was not posted

[3:40:36] until JUNE 30.

[3:40:37] Although the hearing notice was

[3:40:41] publicly posted on JUNE 22nd at

[3:40:42] least two days later by law on

[3:40:46] JULY 6th at 2 P.M. Exactly 24

[3:40:47] hours before this hearing

[3:40:47] the city clerk produced

[3:40:52] the notice recipient list to me

[3:40:52] for the first time.

[3:40:53] The interested parties list

[3:40:53] included my physical mailing

[3:40:58] address yet I did not receive

[3:40:58] mailed notice.

[3:40:59] >> I understand counsel MAY

[3:41:00] also hear testimony today from

[3:41:04] other affected persons who did

[3:41:04] not receive mailed notice that

[3:41:05] raises unresolved compliance

[3:41:10] issues under San Diego

[3:41:11] Municipal Code sections 112

[3:41:15] 0301 and 112.0304 including

[3:41:15] the required posting mailing

[3:41:16] and verification of notice.

[3:41:21] These issues are not harmless

[3:41:27] if founded notice is what gives

[3:41:28] affected residents time to see,

[3:41:28] prepare, organize, submit

[3:41:33] evidence and participate that

[3:41:34] would matter in any district in

[3:41:34] San Diego and that includes

[3:41:35] District four.

[3:41:39] I ask Council to continue

[3:41:40] the hearing or take the matter

[3:41:40] off calendar until notice

[3:41:45] record is complete and legally

[3:41:45] meaningful participation has

[3:41:46] been provided.

[3:41:51] I also want to be clear that

[3:41:52] the community is not abandoning

[3:41:52] the footnote seven issue in

[3:41:53] the Klauber appeal.

[3:41:57] Council member Ken Peel called

[3:41:58] Footnote seven a poisoned tree.

[3:41:59] This proposed project grows

[3:42:02] from that same tree.

[3:42:03] With that preserved I will turn

[3:42:04] to issues of this project for

[3:42:08] particular record council

[3:42:08] members.

[3:42:13] This decision is about scale

[3:42:14] and scale determines

[3:42:14] trajectory.

[3:42:15] Scale determines whether

[3:42:20] the site functions as a

[3:42:21] generational infrastructure

[3:42:21] generational infrastructure or

[3:42:26] becomes another isolated

[3:42:26] subdivision placed into a

[3:42:27] community already disordered by

[3:42:28] generations of public and

[3:42:32] private disinvestment.

[3:42:33] District four is already one of

[3:42:33] the densest councils in San

[3:42:39] Diego and it has the worst

[3:42:39] resource density ratio in

[3:42:40] the city.

[3:42:44] That means district four is not

[3:42:45] simply under built.

[3:42:45] It is overburdened and

[3:42:46] under-resourced.

[3:42:50] It has carried more than its

[3:42:50] proportionate share of income

[3:42:51] restricted housing and because

[3:42:52] disinvestment suppressed

[3:42:56] surrounding value even market

[3:42:57] rate housing on this hill would

[3:42:57] be discounted by the very

[3:43:02] conditions the city has allowed

[3:43:02] to persist.

[3:43:03] That does not change trajectory

[3:43:08] scale can This hill is the only

[3:43:09] site in District four capable

[3:43:10] of operating at that level of

[3:43:14] scale and prominence its

[3:43:18] elevation acreage and 360

[3:43:19] degree vantage point make it

[3:43:20] uniquely suited to function as

[3:43:24] a regional destination not a

[3:43:25] pocket park, not a neighborhood

[3:43:25] amenity but a city wide draw.

[3:43:31] You have been told that you are

[3:43:32] constrained by state housing

[3:43:32] law.

[3:43:33] You are not.

[3:43:37] The Housing accountability Act

[3:43:38] applies only if the project

[3:43:39] complies with all objective

[3:43:43] standards In effect at the time

[3:43:43] the application was deemed

[3:43:44] complete.

[3:43:44] The idea that every project

[3:43:48] must be approved and that it

[3:43:49] creates an unmistakable health

[3:43:50] and safety hazard risk skips

[3:43:55] the very first step of

[3:43:55] the statute.

[3:43:56] Whether the project complies

[3:44:01] with objective standards.

[3:44:01] That step matters here.

[3:44:02] Staff says the community plan

[3:44:07] allows up to 125 units and this

[3:44:07] project proposes 123.

[3:44:13] Staff also says the applicant

[3:44:13] qualifies for a 5% density

[3:44:14] bonus but is not using that

[3:44:18] bonus density that bonus to

[3:44:19] increase density.

[3:44:23] So the question is narrow.

[3:44:24] Can the legally protected

[3:44:25] number of homes be physically

[3:44:30] built on this site?

[3:44:31] If objective standards in

[3:44:32] the community plan are applied

[3:44:36] or do the standards only

[3:44:37] interfere with this developer's

[3:44:38] preferred subdivision map

[3:44:43] the objective standards that

[3:44:44] issue are not big or mysterious

[3:44:44] In this proposed project

[3:44:45] the street frontage with corner

[3:44:48] lot with like depth and

[3:44:49] driveway curb opening limits a

[3:44:53] developer MAY prefer 123

[3:44:54] detached lot a particular

[3:44:54] street layout a particular

[3:44:59] pocket park placement a

[3:44:59] particular open space buffer

[3:45:00] particular driveway curb

[3:45:05] openings particular lot

[3:45:05] dimensions.

[3:45:06] But density bonus law does not

[3:45:07] protect every preferred design

[3:45:12] choice.

[3:45:12] It protects against objective

[3:45:13] standards that physically

[3:45:18] preclude the legally protected

[3:45:18] density.

[3:45:19] Staff's own report says strict

[3:45:23] compliance could reduce

[3:45:24] the project by 8 to 14 lots and

[3:45:24] could potentially reduce up to

[3:45:25] two affordable units.

[3:45:29] But the report frames that as a

[3:45:30] loss of maximization

[3:45:31] development potential and

[3:45:35] slightly out of preference.

[3:45:35] That is not the same as a

[3:45:36] finding that no compliant

[3:45:41] design can physically achieve

[3:45:42] the density protected by law.

[3:45:42] >> If the record does not prove

[3:45:47] that the standards physically

[3:45:48] preclude the legally protected

[3:45:52] number of units, 88 does not

[3:45:53] compel approval.

[3:45:58] Council is not bound to approve

[3:45:59] this project now because you

[3:46:04] retain discretion.

[3:46:05] The next question is how that

[3:46:06] discretion should be exercised.

[3:46:11] This is not simply another

[3:46:11] housing site.

[3:46:12] This is the only remaining site

[3:46:13] capable of changing the long

[3:46:17] term trajectory of District

[3:46:17] four.

[3:46:18] We have had many council

[3:46:23] members sit in that spot and we

[3:46:23] are still in the condition that

[3:46:24] we are in.

[3:46:24] Denying this project would not

[3:46:29] be arbitrary or unequal

[3:46:29] treatment.

[3:46:30] Equal protection protects

[3:46:30] similarly situated applicants

[3:46:35] from being treated differently

[3:46:35] under the law.

[3:46:36] But this is a discretionary

[3:46:41] land use decision and this site

[3:46:41] is not similarly situated to

[3:46:42] ordinary development sites.

[3:46:43] Council MAY evaluate this

[3:46:47] application on the record

[3:46:48] before it, including the site's

[3:46:53] singular public value.

[3:46:54] It is not merely the acreage it

[3:46:55] is the combination elevations

[3:46:56] sweeping views, regional

[3:47:00] visibility, symbolic promise

[3:47:00] and location and how much it

[3:47:01] would affirmatively further

[3:47:05] fair housing views of downtown

[3:47:06] The bay, the ocean and

[3:47:07] the surrounding mountains are

[3:47:07] not cosmetic.

[3:47:11] They are economic.

[3:47:12] Even the applicant's own

[3:47:17] presentation uses those views

[3:47:17] to establish value.

[3:47:18] >> That value should become

[3:47:22] public value for District four

[3:47:22] and the city at large.

[3:47:23] They create the kind of

[3:47:23] destination that could attract

[3:47:28] institutions that usually

[3:47:28] bypass resource communities,

[3:47:29] satellite college campuses,

[3:47:33] market rate, health care

[3:47:34] nationally recognized

[3:47:35] nonprofits, higher quality

[3:47:35] retail and middle income

[3:47:36] households.

[3:47:40] There is no second sight

[3:47:41] waiting in reserve if this hill

[3:47:46] is subdivided.

[3:47:46] The trajectory changing

[3:47:47] opportunity is gone and because

[3:47:48] this is a discretionary

[3:47:52] entitlement the developer could

[3:47:52] never guarantee that

[3:47:53] entitlements would be granted.

[3:47:58] Council's duty is not to

[3:47:59] protect the private development

[3:47:59] expectation.

[3:48:00] Council's duty is to make an

[3:48:03] independent lawful decision on

[3:48:04] the record before it.

[3:48:08] Now when I say District four

[3:48:09] has been disordered by

[3:48:10] generations of public and

[3:48:10] private disinvestment I mean

[3:48:15] previous I mean conditions like

[3:48:15] this.

[3:48:21] These are not side streets.

[3:48:21] These are Euclid and Imperial

[3:48:22] Avenues, the two most iconic

[3:48:27] thoroughfares in District four.

[3:48:27] One runs east west.

[3:48:28] The other runs north South.

[3:48:32] They shall warn commercial

[3:48:33] frontage abandoned and deface

[3:48:33] commercial properties.

[3:48:34] Harsh heat island

[3:48:39] infrastructure.

[3:48:40] A weak pedestrian environment.

[3:48:40] Corridor Conditions that

[3:48:41] suppress value rather than

[3:48:45] attract it.

[3:48:45] Ordinary subdivision ad units

[3:48:46] into that disordered landscape.

[3:48:51] It does not reverse it.

[3:48:51] Southeastern San Diego has

[3:48:57] carried a disproportionate and

[3:48:58] shameful share of the city's

[3:48:59] very low and extremely low

[3:48:59] restricted housing obligations

[3:49:03] That imbalance became serious

[3:49:04] enough that the city settled

[3:49:04] the Baker case.

[3:49:05] But lesson is not that

[3:49:10] affordable housing is bad.

[3:49:11] >> The lesson is that

[3:49:12] concentrating income restricted

[3:49:12] unit to low resource

[3:49:13] communities before building

[3:49:15] capacity around them does not

[3:49:15] produce opportunity.

[3:49:16] It does not affirmatively

[3:49:17] further fair housing.

[3:49:21] Matthew Desmond made that point

[3:49:22] plainly in his book Poverty by

[3:49:22] America.

[3:49:27] Concentrated poverty Choked

[3:49:27] opportunity from Children and

[3:49:28] Families.

[3:49:28] And District four is not

[3:49:29] experiencing that concentration

[3:49:33] by accident.

[3:49:34] District four has roughly two

[3:49:35] and a half times the citywide

[3:49:35] percentage of black residents.

[3:49:40] The disadvantage created by

[3:49:40] the concentration accrues to

[3:49:41] everyone who lives there across

[3:49:45] race and ethnicity even when

[3:49:46] their long term trajectory is

[3:49:47] different from that The black

[3:49:47] residents.

[3:49:51] Housing is not just rooftops.

[3:49:52] >> People do not live only

[3:49:52] inside four walls.

[3:49:58] People live in communities and

[3:49:58] opportunity is not abstract.

[3:49:59] It shows up in years of healthy

[3:50:03] life educational attainment,

[3:50:04] income of children matured into

[3:50:05] adulthood, institutional

[3:50:10] presence, quality retail and

[3:50:10] whether children grow up

[3:50:11] surrounded by signals of

[3:50:15] investment or abandonment.

[3:50:16] We have produced units.

[3:50:16] What we have not produced is

[3:50:17] capacity.

[3:50:22] Capacity before density is

[3:50:22] the principle here Capacity

[3:50:23] that signals stability to

[3:50:27] businesses and institutions and

[3:50:28] to attract a broader income

[3:50:28] mix.

[3:50:29] If density alone created

[3:50:33] resources, District four would

[3:50:34] already be one of the best

[3:50:39] served communities in San Diego

[3:50:39] .

[3:50:40] >> The data confirm what

[3:50:41] residents have lived for

[3:50:41] decades.

[3:50:46] District four carries high

[3:50:46] density with almost no resource

[3:50:47] capacity underneath it.

[3:50:48] Look at that bar graph.

[3:50:51] Among all nine council

[3:50:52] districts, District four has

[3:50:53] the lowest resource density

[3:50:53] ratio.

[3:50:58] This is why the answer cannot

[3:50:59] be more density on the one side

[3:51:00] capable of building capacity at

[3:51:07] scale.

[3:51:07] I expect you MAY hear about

[3:51:08] recent improvements that have

[3:51:08] been made.

[3:51:13] The mlk Pool Murray Whitman

[3:51:14] Park The Skate Park Community

[3:51:14] Stewardship.

[3:51:19] I welcome every one of those

[3:51:20] investments.

[3:51:20] But improvements are not

[3:51:21] the same as transformation.

[3:51:24] A renovated pool does not

[3:51:25] replace the 31 acres.

[3:51:25] A skate park does not.

[3:51:26] Resident Stewardship Grants and

[3:51:31] plans do not.

[3:51:32] Nor do frontage improvements or

[3:51:35] 60th street widening Replace

[3:51:36] these 31 acres.

[3:51:36] Those investments matter but

[3:51:37] they are incremental.

[3:51:46] This hill is structural.

[3:51:47] Residents have been asked to

[3:51:48] trust assurances before on

[3:51:52] Klauber counsel was assured

[3:51:52] that the required public notice

[3:51:53] had occurred.

[3:51:54] But the staff report did not

[3:51:59] contain the proof in its

[3:51:59] response of public records

[3:52:04] Later showed that the developer

[3:52:05] certification of proper public

[3:52:06] notice was blank and unsigned.

[3:52:11] That history matters today when

[3:52:12] staff now said it leaves no

[3:52:17] discretion.

[3:52:18] The record has to support that

[3:52:18] claim here.

[3:52:23] The record before you does not

[3:52:23] .

[3:52:23] >> Once residential

[3:52:24] stakeholders are introduced,

[3:52:25] scale is foreclosed.

[3:52:29] New homeowners gain standing to

[3:52:30] challenge grading programing

[3:52:30] lighting traffic Every future

[3:52:31] effort to assemble a regional

[3:52:36] park that is citywide and

[3:52:36] tourists draw the lay becomes

[3:52:37] attrition of land and will be

[3:52:37] energy.

[3:52:41] A working class volunteers in

[3:52:41] the community including those

[3:52:42] on community planning groups.

[3:52:43] Attrition becomes a permanent

[3:52:43] loss.

[3:52:47] The city can mitigate another

[3:52:47] facility.

[3:52:48] The city can fund another

[3:52:48] improvement project but

[3:52:52] the city cannot recreate or

[3:52:53] relocate Towers Hill once it is

[3:52:54] gone.

[3:52:54] Granting the appeal should be

[3:52:55] the beginning of

[3:52:58] the preservation pathway, not

[3:52:58] the end of it.

[3:52:59] Council should direct staff to

[3:53:00] return with options for

[3:53:04] acquisition conservation

[3:53:05] funding and a possible value

[3:53:05] exchange framework including

[3:53:06] work with other levels of

[3:53:06] government regional park

[3:53:10] partners, land trust

[3:53:11] conservancies philanthropic

[3:53:12] foundations and public private

[3:53:12] partners.

[3:53:16] Councilmember Foster You can

[3:53:17] bring this home for District

[3:53:17] four and when you make that

[3:53:22] move the beloved community DR.

[3:53:23] King called us toward will

[3:53:27] stand behind you.

[3:53:28] Each of your names will be

[3:53:29] entered into history as a

[3:53:30] result of the vote on this

[3:53:30] project.

[3:53:34] The question is how will this

[3:53:35] be The council that permanently

[3:53:35] locked District four into

[3:53:39] the continuing legacy of

[3:53:40] redlining?

[3:53:40] Or will it be the council that

[3:53:41] finally came to terms with that

[3:53:45] legacy and created a mechanism

[3:53:45] to save countless years of

[3:53:46] healthy life of the now living

[3:53:47] and dead unborn due to more

[3:53:50] than seven decades of

[3:53:51] disinvestment?

[3:53:51] The city has allowed to

[3:53:52] continue.

[3:53:56] Council members We ask you to

[3:54:01] grant this appeal.

[3:54:07] >> Our next organized

[3:54:07] presentation is Mary Young.

[3:54:08] Mary Young if you can please

[3:54:09] come forward to the lectern.

[3:54:13] You also have several speakers

[3:54:14] on your participant list or

[3:54:15] several people on your

[3:54:15] participant list.

[3:54:19] You can please raise your hand.

[3:54:19] Bunch McCray Thank you.

[3:54:23] Hondo Hamill you're here.

[3:54:29] Madison Campbell Kaye Thomas Oh

[3:54:29] yeah.

[3:54:34] Dorothy James if I can ask you

[3:54:35] just to put that down for one

[3:54:36] second so I can see the other

[3:54:39] vertically challenged.

[3:54:40] Dorothy James Thank you.

[3:54:45] Becca Battista.

[3:54:45] Bobbie Battista.

[3:54:46] Bobbie Battista okay.

[3:54:50] Thank you guys.

[3:54:50] Battista.

[3:54:55] Sean McHenry.

[3:55:00] Oh, okay.

[3:55:01] Maverick Garcia She fit.

[3:55:05] Maxwell in.

[3:55:06] Thank you.

[3:55:11] Hank Kerins Hank Cairns I did

[3:55:12] not see a Hank Aaron's.

[3:55:16] >> Danielle Cannon You're kind

[3:55:17] of here And Shania McPherson.

[3:55:21] No, she's not here.

[3:55:22] Okay, so that's one, two, three

[3:55:23] or 4 or 5.

[3:55:25] So you will have ten minutes.

[3:55:26] >> Thank you.

[3:55:30] Yeah.

[3:55:31] Please proceed already.

[3:55:31] Good afternoon.

[3:55:35] Um, I'm really disturbed about

[3:55:40] what happened earlier and

[3:55:40] probably the first time that I

[3:55:45] ever felt disconnected from my

[3:55:45] community.

[3:55:50] Official Good afternoon.

[3:55:51] My name is Mary Young.

[3:55:55] I come from a community of

[3:55:56] greatness.

[3:56:00] >> I am here to honor that

[3:56:01] legacy and to remind you that

[3:56:05] our history, our people, our

[3:56:06] neighborhood deserves respect

[3:56:11] for tection and a real voice in

[3:56:15] decisions that affect my

[3:56:15] family.

[3:56:20] Story begins in Concord,

[3:56:21] California where we lived in an

[3:56:26] integrated field housing and my

[3:56:31] brother attended and integrated

[3:56:31] d o d school.

[3:56:35] My father Worchester Duke Young

[3:56:36] served in the us Navy.

[3:56:41] My mother Sissako Young became

[3:56:44] American citizen on SEPTEMBER

[3:56:45] 8th, 1960.

[3:56:50] We had freedom, safety and

[3:56:50] opportunity there.

[3:56:54] But when my father was

[3:56:55] transferred to San Diego

[3:56:59] everything changed.

[3:57:00] >> D.O.D. Housing was closed to

[3:57:04] us Red lining shaped where

[3:57:05] families and colored live and

[3:57:09] racism followed us as we

[3:57:10] searched for our home.

[3:57:14] For a year every Sunday my

[3:57:15] family drove through

[3:57:15] neighborhoods looking for a

[3:57:16] house.

[3:57:16] Why?

[3:57:19] My mother reminded villagers

[3:57:20] that her husband had served in

[3:57:24] two wars and that she wasn't

[3:57:24] American citizen.

[3:57:29] Eventually we found Rancho Zero

[3:57:30] and Alta Vista a development

[3:57:34] built for military families and

[3:57:34] minorities.

[3:57:38] Walking through that front door

[3:57:39] felt like walking through

[3:57:40] the gates of heaven where those

[3:57:44] red lines we found a place of

[3:57:48] dignity, safety and greatness.

[3:57:49] So I want you to be sure that

[3:57:53] this issue here is not about

[3:57:54] housing.

[3:57:58] >> The greatness is everywhere

[3:57:59] in our community.

[3:58:03] It is in neighbors like MR.

[3:58:04] Robinson, a retired fire chief

[3:58:08] and master gardener who talked

[3:58:09] children about urban gardening

[3:58:09] and protecting the earth.

[3:58:13] It is in our Filipino Navy

[3:58:14] families who advocated for Nye

[3:58:18] Elementary School, one of

[3:58:23] California's top schools 20%

[3:58:24] that has 95%.

[3:58:28] Minority enrollment.

[3:58:32] >> It is about our Montford

[3:58:37] Point Marines Congressional

[3:58:37] Gold Medal recipients.

[3:58:42] >> We have the majority of them

[3:58:44] west of the Mississippi living

[3:58:45] in the fourth District, the one

[3:58:50] remaining it is about Maurice

[3:58:54] Rafael Portela, Navy Cross

[3:58:55] recipient who threw himself on

[3:59:00] a grenade Marine ship named

[3:59:00] after him.

[3:59:05] For Morath excellence it is

[3:59:05] about the graduates of Lincoln

[3:59:09] and Morath who went on to serve

[3:59:14] coach compete lead at

[3:59:14] the highest level.

[3:59:19] It is Willie Shaw's legacy.

[3:59:20] It is more than athletes who

[3:59:24] reach Major League Baseball's

[3:59:24] legacy.

[3:59:28] 30 of them went to Major

[3:59:28] league.

[3:59:33] It is about Lincoln's football

[3:59:33] legacy.

[3:59:34] Number four in the nation's

[3:59:38] produced professional players

[3:59:39] we produce four Heisman Trophy

[3:59:43] winner Jackie Thompson.

[3:59:48] Olympian Monique Henderson,

[3:59:53] Olympian and Ross King, a

[3:59:54] retired nurse from Encanto who

[3:59:57] began playing tennis at 40.

[4:00:01] She is now ranked number one in

[4:00:02] the world in doubles for her

[4:00:06] age group excellence.

[4:00:07] And even when our young people

[4:00:11] face neglect, they still rose

[4:00:12] to the occasion.

[4:00:12] Lincoln High School football

[4:00:16] players lost access to

[4:00:21] the field because of floods and

[4:00:22] had to practice outside their

[4:00:22] community.

[4:00:26] Yet they brought a championship

[4:00:27] in home to their community and

[4:00:27] their city.

[4:00:31] >> Our planning groups reflect

[4:00:31] greatness also.

[4:00:35] >> Members from our planning

[4:00:36] groups on their own secured a

[4:00:40] voucher program to reduce

[4:00:41] segregation and expand

[4:00:41] opportunities.

[4:00:46] Others have fought for the Fort

[4:00:46] Freeway encroachment through

[4:00:50] our community participated in

[4:00:55] the concentration of poverty

[4:00:59] lawsuit and continue to stay

[4:00:59] engaged.

[4:01:00] Even though we lost the power

[4:01:05] support and investment of ac

[4:01:10] dc, that's when the city just

[4:01:10] rolled over us.

[4:01:15] >> We listened to our community

[4:01:15] .

[4:01:15] We invite people in.

[4:01:16] We stay engaged.

[4:01:23] But too often the city ignores

[4:01:24] our community plan opens

[4:01:29] the doors to Predator investors

[4:01:34] and developers.

[4:01:38] They invite and write policies

[4:01:43] and then fails to correct them

[4:01:43] .

[4:01:46] We are the people who know our

[4:01:52] community the best.

[4:01:53] >> We are the people who live

[4:01:56] here.

[4:01:57] >> We are the people who fight

[4:02:01] here.

[4:02:05] We are the people who carry

[4:02:06] history forward.

[4:02:11] We are your people, not policy

[4:02:11] makers.

[4:02:16] We are your people.

[4:02:21] >> We are asking for a space to

[4:02:22] honor our legacy and to show

[4:02:26] our greatness the legacy that

[4:02:31] belongs to the people who have

[4:02:32] built it here.

[4:02:35] We want you to protect it.

[4:02:36] We want to continue to live it

[4:02:40] again.

[4:02:41] We are the people.

[4:02:45] Please respect our history.

[4:02:49] Protect our community and stand

[4:02:50] with us.

[4:02:52] Support the appeal.

[4:02:58] Thank you.

[4:02:59] Our final organized

[4:03:00] presentation here in council

[4:03:03] chambers is Thomas.

[4:03:04] Melanie Thomas.

[4:03:04] Melanie.

[4:03:05] You have time.

[4:03:05] You have a participant on your

[4:03:09] list as Janet o'Dell.

[4:03:09] >> You'll have two minutes.

[4:03:13] Please proceed.

[4:03:13] Thank you.

[4:03:14] I'm Tom Delaney representing a

[4:03:18] group of San Diego.

[4:03:18] We support cpo by the planning

[4:03:19] group.

[4:03:19] I want to describe some of

[4:03:23] the reasons why that appeal

[4:03:23] should be upheld and

[4:03:24] the decision of the Planning

[4:03:27] Commission reversed.

[4:03:27] First is footnote seven.

[4:03:28] This fine print shows how far

[4:03:32] dsd in the Planning Department

[4:03:33] will go to fool the public.

[4:03:37] The staff report focused on

[4:03:37] the time three years ago when

[4:03:38] the application was made.

[4:03:42] They ignored a unique aspect of

[4:03:42] Footnote seven.

[4:03:43] It was inserted into the zoning

[4:03:47] code improperly and was invalid

[4:03:47] from the start.

[4:03:48] I've submitted an attorney's

[4:03:52] letter which explains that in

[4:03:52] detail.

[4:03:53] The lesson from footnote seven

[4:03:56] is the residents of this unit

[4:03:57] cannot trust the city staff who

[4:03:57] work at the direction of

[4:03:58] the mayor.

[4:04:02] We do not trust those council

[4:04:02] members who go along with every

[4:04:06] bad project and every up zoning

[4:04:06] program.

[4:04:07] The mayor can think of even

[4:04:10] after the city has provided

[4:04:11] enough allowable capacity for

[4:04:12] hundreds of thousands more

[4:04:16] units than the forecast calls

[4:04:16] for relying on a housing

[4:04:20] shortage for all decisions is

[4:04:21] becoming more absurd as vacancy

[4:04:21] rates climb and property

[4:04:25] managers offer rent discounts.

[4:04:26] The second reason why you

[4:04:27] should uphold the appeal is

[4:04:30] the discretion nature of

[4:04:31] the project.

[4:04:31] The conditions of

[4:04:34] the development permits have

[4:04:35] not been met.

[4:04:36] The findings cannot reasonably

[4:04:36] be supported.

[4:04:40] This does not require your

[4:04:41] legal expert.

[4:04:41] It requires common sense and

[4:04:42] good judgment.

[4:04:45] For one, it's apparent

[4:04:45] the community plan calls for a

[4:04:46] large locked development in a

[4:04:48] rural atmosphere covering

[4:04:49] the entire hilltop with this

[4:04:53] project and using the last

[4:04:54] sizable open space is not

[4:04:54] consistent with the community

[4:04:58] plan.

[4:04:58] So this appeal should be upheld

[4:04:59] and the project denied.

[4:05:02] This will allow an opportunity

[4:05:03] for city officials and

[4:05:04] the community to work together

[4:05:07] with the applicant for a

[4:05:08] project which meets the needs

[4:05:09] of the applicant and

[4:05:09] the community.

[4:05:10] Thank you.

[4:05:15] >> Thank you.

[4:05:16] >> This does include all

[4:05:17] organized presentations for

[4:05:18] item 331 that were submitted to

[4:05:20] the Office of the City Clerk.

[4:05:21] Will now move on to in-person

[4:05:21] public comment.

[4:05:24] We currently have 30 speakers

[4:05:28] with in-person and virtual so

[4:05:29] 20 in-person and ten virtual.

[4:05:33] If Zach DeFazio o'Farrell can

[4:05:34] please come up to the lectern

[4:05:35] to the microphone and if I can

[4:05:38] have the following individuals

[4:05:39] please come up to the yellow

[4:05:39] reserved seats in the front

[4:05:40] row.

[4:05:43] Allegedly Audra Mohammad Omar.

[4:05:44] Jesse Schmidt.

[4:05:48] Manny Rodriguez.

[4:05:48] Bruce Mabon.

[4:05:49] Erika Becerra.

[4:05:53] Andrew Hollingworth, Kathleen

[4:05:57] McGloin, Eric Lau and

[4:05:58] Maximilian Schmidt.

[4:05:58] If you can all please come up

[4:06:02] to the front row and then Zac

[4:06:02] are you here?

[4:06:03] Oh please come up to

[4:06:04] the microphone and you can

[4:06:04] begin.

[4:06:10] You'll have one minute.

[4:06:10] Yup.

[4:06:10] All right.

[4:06:15] Good afternoon, council

[4:06:15] members.

[4:06:16] My name is Zach DeFazio Farrell

[4:06:17] and I'm the treasurer of

[4:06:20] the Democrats of San Diego

[4:06:20] County.

[4:06:21] We urge you to deny the appeal

[4:06:24] and approve Admiral Hill's

[4:06:25] including his 13 affordable

[4:06:25] homes.

[4:06:26] First, the potential park

[4:06:30] designation is aspirational and

[4:06:30] not binding.

[4:06:31] The Encanto community plan

[4:06:32] itself states that identifying

[4:06:35] a private property as a

[4:06:36] potential park site does not

[4:06:36] preclude permitted development

[4:06:37] under the underlying land use

[4:06:40] rezone.

[4:06:40] The plan does not require

[4:06:41] denial and expressly allows

[4:06:41] this project.

[4:06:45] Secondly, there is no park to

[4:06:45] lose.

[4:06:46] This parcel is privately owned.

[4:06:49] The city never purchased it,

[4:06:50] never funded it and never

[4:06:51] offered to acquire it.

[4:06:51] Denying these homes does not

[4:06:54] produce a park.

[4:06:54] It only produces no homes.

[4:06:58] San Diego desperately needs

[4:06:59] housing, especially affordable

[4:06:59] housing.

[4:07:00] Please deny the appeal and

[4:07:04] approve Emerald Hills.

[4:07:04] >> Thank you.

[4:07:05] Allegedly.

[4:07:06] Audrey, if you can please come

[4:07:13] forward.

[4:07:14] >> I need to call a point of

[4:07:18] order because this hasn't been

[4:07:18] properly noticed.

[4:07:19] Like the item that you guys did

[4:07:22] yesterday with the Southwest

[4:07:23] Village.

[4:07:24] You can't continue when these

[4:07:28] are not properly notice to

[4:07:28] the public because you're

[4:07:29] circumventing the will of

[4:07:30] the people.

[4:07:32] When you don't do that and so

[4:07:33] you cannot continue legally by

[4:07:37] even accepting the appeal or

[4:07:37] not you have to properly

[4:07:42] notices So you're

[4:07:42] disenfranchizing all of these

[4:07:47] people by not following the law

[4:07:48] as far as what you need to do

[4:07:48] to bring these projects

[4:07:49] forward.

[4:07:52] So it's very concerning that

[4:07:52] you guys keep doing this and it

[4:07:57] seems like obviously if it's

[4:07:58] not something that people want

[4:07:58] then you don't properly notice

[4:07:59] it so that they don't have an

[4:08:02] opportunity to come in and make

[4:08:03] sure that things are done

[4:08:07] legally.

[4:08:08] >> I hear your point of order.

[4:08:09] The allegations are it wasn't

[4:08:12] properly noticed.

[4:08:12] The city believes that it was

[4:08:13] properly noticed.

[4:08:16] There are other avenues for

[4:08:17] people to pursue but there is

[4:08:17] every evidence that it was

[4:08:18] properly noticed.

[4:08:22] So we'll give you your minute

[4:08:22] back.

[4:08:23] Thank you.

[4:08:25] The project It's unfortunate

[4:08:26] that you know, people like

[4:08:27] Monica and Henry will be

[4:08:30] sitting here and using

[4:08:31] the black and brown community

[4:08:32] acting like you really care

[4:08:35] about them when you actually

[4:08:36] gaslight them in your pursuit

[4:08:40] to bring forward a project.

[4:08:41] So I would suggest that you

[4:08:42] quit doing that to your own

[4:08:45] community because it is a

[4:08:46] disservice to them And it's sad

[4:08:50] because it's like if you guys

[4:08:50] cannot comply with properly

[4:08:51] noticing things I mean I had to

[4:08:55] hold you guys accountable for

[4:08:56] having it being a quorum and

[4:08:56] now you do.

[4:08:58] But I was almost arrested three

[4:08:59] times for bringing that point

[4:08:59] of order.

[4:09:04] So you guys need to respect

[4:09:04] the people that come in here

[4:09:08] and this is their community.

[4:09:08] They have said no.

[4:09:09] You have developers that come

[4:09:12] in and people who are supposed

[4:09:13] to represent these communities

[4:09:18] and you guys are basically not

[4:09:19] giving a about what they have

[4:09:19] to say.

[4:09:20] You're not doing it legally And

[4:09:21] so I suggest that you guys take

[4:09:23] proper legal action to not even

[4:09:24] allow any of this to continue.

[4:09:25] >> Your time has concluded.

[4:09:36] >> Mohammed Omar.

[4:09:41] >> Hi, my name is Mohammed Omar

[4:09:41] and I'm speaking on behalf of

[4:09:42] Partnership for the Advancement

[4:09:43] of New Americans, a member of

[4:09:45] the coalition for Equitable

[4:09:46] Development in support of

[4:09:47] the Emerald Hills Housing

[4:09:51] Project San Diego cannot solve

[4:09:51] its housing crisis without

[4:09:52] building more homes and we

[4:09:55] believe this project represents

[4:09:56] an opportunity to add much

[4:09:56] needed housing to our city

[4:09:57] supply.

[4:10:01] This project also adds

[4:10:01] infrastructure street

[4:10:02] streetlights and storm water

[4:10:02] basins.

[4:10:05] We appreciate that the project

[4:10:05] includes deed restricted

[4:10:06] affordable homes which are an

[4:10:10] important part of ensuring that

[4:10:11] the new development benefits a

[4:10:11] range of San Diego.

[4:10:14] This is also adjacent to

[4:10:15] Emerald Hills Park and a school

[4:10:19] which has a potential joint use

[4:10:20] space to double as a park.

[4:10:21] At this time we strongly

[4:10:24] encourage city and

[4:10:24] the developer to continue

[4:10:25] exploring.

[4:10:25] At the same time we strongly

[4:10:29] encourage the city and

[4:10:29] the developer to continue

[4:10:30] exploring opportunities to

[4:10:30] strengthen their project

[4:10:34] Affordable City.

[4:10:35] While we while we understand

[4:10:36] today's hearing is focused on

[4:10:39] the appeal before the Council.

[4:10:39] >> Thank you.

[4:10:40] Thank you for those comments

[4:10:40] Jessie.

[4:10:48] Many.

[4:10:49] >> Good afternoon Council

[4:10:50] PRESIDENT Council Members My

[4:10:50] name is Jesse Schmidt and I'm

[4:10:53] speaking on behalf of

[4:10:54] the Coalition for Equitable

[4:10:54] Development today a coalition

[4:10:58] that represents nearly 20

[4:10:59] organizations across the city

[4:10:59] of San Diego.

[4:11:02] St Let's let's tether this

[4:11:03] conversation.

[4:11:03] >> In fact, San Diego cannot

[4:11:04] solve its housing crisis

[4:11:06] without building more homes And

[4:11:07] we believe that this project

[4:11:11] represents a rich opportunity

[4:11:12] to add much needed housing to

[4:11:13] our city's lacking supply.

[4:11:17] This project also adds

[4:11:17] infrastructure, street lights

[4:11:18] and stormwater basins all

[4:11:18] issues that we've heard

[4:11:22] the community asking for today.

[4:11:23] We appreciate that the project

[4:11:23] includes deed restricted

[4:11:24] affordable homes which are

[4:11:27] absolutely an important part of

[4:11:28] ensuring that new development

[4:11:28] benefits.

[4:11:32] A range of San Diegans At

[4:11:32] the same time we strongly

[4:11:33] encourage the city and

[4:11:34] developer to continue exploring

[4:11:37] opportunities to strengthen

[4:11:37] the project's affordability.

[4:11:38] What we understand today's

[4:11:39] hearing is focused on

[4:11:42] the appeal before Council.

[4:11:43] We hope that this project can

[4:11:43] serve as an example of how

[4:11:44] market rate development can

[4:11:46] also contribute more

[4:11:47] meaningfully to our city's

[4:11:47] affordable housing goals.

[4:11:48] >> Thank you.

[4:12:01] Manny Rodriguez You know good

[4:12:02] afternoon council members.

[4:12:03] My name is Manny.

[4:12:05] I lead at the nimby Democrats

[4:12:06] of San Diego County and as

[4:12:07] the progressive advocate before

[4:12:10] me had mentioned the city

[4:12:11] cannot solve its housing crisis

[4:12:11] without building more homes.

[4:12:15] I won't belabor that point but

[4:12:16] I will share that I looked at

[4:12:16] the us Census Bureau's website

[4:12:20] and I thought that it said

[4:12:20] approximately half of adults

[4:12:24] aged 18 to 34 in this zip code

[4:12:25] still live with their parents.

[4:12:25] I'm from the county.

[4:12:28] Most of the friends I grew up

[4:12:29] with still live with their

[4:12:29] parents or they moved out of

[4:12:30] state.

[4:12:33] These homes provide a great

[4:12:34] opportunity for people in

[4:12:34] the community, people in

[4:12:35] the city to move in and build

[4:12:38] that homeownership and build

[4:12:39] those roots in their community

[4:12:39] and to, you know, move out of

[4:12:43] their parents home which is a

[4:12:43] lot of people my age

[4:12:44] desperately want to do.

[4:12:45] So I urge you to approve these

[4:12:47] homes to approve new

[4:12:51] opportunities for people 18 to

[4:12:52] 34 to have their own

[4:12:52] homeownership, a place to build

[4:12:53] wealth and a place to grow a

[4:12:53] family.

[4:12:55] Thank you very much, Bruce

[4:13:04] Mayberry, Bruce Mayberry going

[4:13:05] once most Bruce Mayberry, Eric

[4:13:14] Becerra I don't see a Bruce So

[4:13:17] Eric you can come up.

[4:13:17] >> Hello guys.

[4:13:18] First of all I want to thank

[4:13:22] all my neighbors here,

[4:13:23] especially the neighbors with

[4:13:23] all the young kids.

[4:13:26] It is extremely hard for us to

[4:13:27] take time off and be here.

[4:13:31] So thank you guys.

[4:13:32] Now this footnote seven How did

[4:13:36] the developer know before we

[4:13:36] knew right?

[4:13:40] How did they know Remember

[4:13:41] guys, was this something that

[4:13:45] was put in there and we need to

[4:13:46] hold the law right?

[4:13:50] So how did they know what's

[4:13:51] good?

[4:13:51] What's going on?

[4:13:52] Are you guys going to prove

[4:13:55] something that later on when

[4:13:55] the truth comes out it's going

[4:13:56] to be like oh man, we made a

[4:13:56] mistake.

[4:13:59] Is that what's going to happen

[4:14:00] right now?

[4:14:00] You guys You guys have

[4:14:04] the power to make San Diego

[4:14:04] great.

[4:14:05] Make it better.

[4:14:09] You know, just imagine back in

[4:14:14] the days what if what if they

[4:14:15] voted to bow down by

[4:14:15] the ballpark and put home their

[4:14:18] right.

[4:14:23] >> Earlier Sage Oh thank you.

[4:14:29] Andrew Hollingworth I have

[4:14:29] Kathleen McLain after Andrew

[4:14:32] Hollingworth Andrew

[4:14:33] Hollingworth Are you here?

[4:14:38] Andrew Going once?

[4:14:38] Andrew Okay Kathleen if you can

[4:14:39] please come forward and if I

[4:14:42] can ask the following

[4:14:43] individuals to please come up

[4:14:44] to the front row.

[4:14:47] Eric Lor Maximilian Schmidt

[4:14:47] Alan Conrad Patricia

[4:14:48] Montgomery.

[4:14:53] Ellen Walsh DR. Ethel Sims and

[4:14:54] Ozzie Men's Manassas If you can

[4:14:57] please come up to the front row

[4:14:58] Please proceed when ready?

[4:14:58] Yes.

[4:14:58] Good afternoon.

[4:15:01] Council members.

[4:15:02] I'm a plaintiff in the Baker

[4:15:03] settlement opposed to

[4:15:06] concentrated poverty in low

[4:15:07] resource areas.

[4:15:11] Remedies focus on rebuilding

[4:15:12] infrastructure, housing equity

[4:15:12] and neighborhood wealth.

[4:15:16] I read the city on this side

[4:15:17] for 20 years then sold that

[4:15:21] decades ago as surplus property

[4:15:21] to meet budget needs.

[4:15:25] It was a paper park that dph

[4:15:26] would fund in future years.

[4:15:30] These fees didn't accrue

[4:15:31] because of lack of balanced

[4:15:34] income Housing couldn't sustain

[4:15:35] an economic hub and tax base

[4:15:40] choice Valley is owed this

[4:15:40] scarce land for the public

[4:15:41] good.

[4:15:44] Consider a park bonfire

[4:15:45] financed by the city different

[4:15:46] Unlike other resource areas we

[4:15:50] were denied the opportunity to

[4:15:50] generate this revenue over

[4:15:51] decades to pay for our

[4:15:55] infrastructure this year Please

[4:15:56] support the appeal to invest a

[4:15:59] new in Choice Valley.

[4:16:00] >> Thank you.

[4:16:04] Thank you Eric Long.

[4:16:05] >> Good afternoon.

[4:16:10] Council members Eric Lau from

[4:16:10] San Diego United Communities

[4:16:14] here in support of the appeal

[4:16:19] that's the bottom line.

[4:16:20] What we're here to support is

[4:16:25] writing the injustices that

[4:16:26] have gone on for this century

[4:16:30] of shame.

[4:16:31] This community of concern lies

[4:16:31] behind the traditional red

[4:16:34] lines.

[4:16:35] They have a shortage of

[4:16:35] resources.

[4:16:36] We know that they have a

[4:16:39] shortage of resources.

[4:16:40] The park is a resource They're

[4:16:44] supposed to get prioritized

[4:16:44] diff funds.

[4:16:45] That's why the mayor

[4:16:46] consolidated dip funds so they

[4:16:49] could fund parks especially in

[4:16:53] the communities of concern and

[4:16:54] yet we're seeing the opposite

[4:16:54] occur here.

[4:16:59] We're seeing gentrification for

[4:16:59] displacement here.

[4:17:04] This community he was promised

[4:17:08] in 2015 a park on the Hill It's

[4:17:09] a beautiful hill.

[4:17:09] If you haven't been there go

[4:17:10] see it.

[4:17:13] Thank you for that statement.

[4:17:13] Maximilian Schmidt Maximilian

[4:17:18] Schmidt I don't see him here.

[4:17:20] Alan Conrad if you can please

[4:17:26] come forward.

[4:17:26] >> I'm here in support of

[4:17:30] the appeal and I also want to

[4:17:31] just bring a little clarity

[4:17:31] about accountability.

[4:17:36] The people guys get to talk

[4:17:36] about Footnote seven was more

[4:17:40] than just not best practices It

[4:17:45] was illegally placed there by

[4:17:45] some of you and some of

[4:17:50] the lady that was here was a

[4:17:51] conspirator of this and those

[4:17:55] should have consequences.

[4:17:55] Those illegal acts should have

[4:17:59] consequences and the natural

[4:17:59] consequence of these illegal

[4:18:04] insertions of code is that

[4:18:04] the things that are passed

[4:18:05] under that code should not be

[4:18:09] allowed to continue.

[4:18:14] >> It's really simple.

[4:18:17] >> Patricia Montgomery Patricia

[4:18:22] Montgomery are you here?

[4:18:23] >> I am here I am Patricia

[4:18:27] Montgomery and I am here in

[4:18:28] support of the project because

[4:18:32] I live in the community and I

[4:18:36] like to see growth.

[4:18:37] I'm 70 years old and over that

[4:18:41] period of time change comes.

[4:18:42] It's come to me.

[4:18:46] Things change and I'm hoping

[4:18:47] that things will change for

[4:18:48] the better.

[4:18:51] >> I'm hoping that people in

[4:18:55] the community will have

[4:18:56] the opportunity to not just

[4:19:01] live in an apartment or a

[4:19:01] rented property but that's

[4:19:05] owned by someone else but be

[4:19:06] able to go and purchase their

[4:19:06] own home.

[4:19:10] >> Single family home We mean

[4:19:15] single family development and

[4:19:15] our area.

[4:19:16] It's nothing wrong with that.

[4:19:17] And Monica Montgomery Step

[4:19:20] loves the fourth District.

[4:19:25] >> The whole fourth district.

[4:19:26] >> She loves them all.

[4:19:27] For that concluding statement

[4:19:31] what is right for average eight

[4:19:32] When your time comes for this I

[4:19:33] need to be fair to everybody.

[4:19:35] Lisa Sorry Catalina, if you can

[4:19:36] please come forward.

[4:19:40] Catalina Arenas my staff is

[4:19:41] going to speak with you after

[4:19:41] that.

[4:19:44] Ellen Walsh if you can please

[4:19:45] come forward to the microphone.

[4:19:49] Ellen Walsh, are you here?

[4:19:54] >> Ellen Oh my apologies.

[4:19:54] Yes.

[4:19:59] Now you can speak.

[4:19:59] Hi, I'm Ellen Nash.

[4:20:00] I'm a lifetime resident of

[4:20:03] southeast San Diego.

[4:20:04] Also my family home where I was

[4:20:05] born and raised is enjoy this

[4:20:08] view.

[4:20:09] I want to say that that I have

[4:20:09] listened to all of

[4:20:13] the wonderful presentations by

[4:20:13] the residents of District four

[4:20:17] particularly of Emerald Hills

[4:20:18] which is one of the most

[4:20:19] pristine areas that growing up

[4:20:23] there enjoy this view that I

[4:20:24] look to Emerald Hills as one of

[4:20:27] the most beautiful areas that

[4:20:27] we've ever seen.

[4:20:28] We were always proud of that

[4:20:32] area and I want I do support

[4:20:32] proceeding with this project.

[4:20:36] It is necessary.

[4:20:37] I am a mother of three grown

[4:20:41] children who cannot afford to

[4:20:42] buy a house here in San Diego.

[4:20:46] We need housing.

[4:20:47] We I'm going to say that again

[4:20:52] We need housing in San Diego.

[4:20:52] We need housing in southeast

[4:20:56] San Diego particularly for

[4:20:57] those mothers like myself who

[4:21:02] want my kids to stay in.

[4:21:02] Thank you.

[4:21:03] And I think we need housing for

[4:21:04] your time.

[4:21:04] Please support this.

[4:21:04] Thank you.

[4:21:06] I must be fair with the time.

[4:21:07] DR. Ethel Sims, if you can

[4:21:11] please come to the microphone.

[4:21:11] Hello.

[4:21:16] Thank you everybody for having

[4:21:16] this forum.

[4:21:17] I do appreciate everybody and

[4:21:18] everything that's been said.

[4:21:22] I'm a native of well not really

[4:21:23] a native of San Diego.

[4:21:23] I've been here long enough.

[4:21:26] I'm a I'm a homeowner in a

[4:21:26] corner of you states which is

[4:21:27] right adjacent to the project

[4:21:30] And I'm in it's been there 46

[4:21:31] years In 1978 my mom back there

[4:21:32] that was her first time owning

[4:21:34] a brand new home.

[4:21:35] We need brand new homes in San

[4:21:35] Diego.

[4:21:36] It is going to actually

[4:21:39] increase and in in upgrade

[4:21:40] the community it's going to

[4:21:41] bring us housing So as a broker

[4:21:44] and a real estate and actually

[4:21:45] as a mother I also want to

[4:21:45] actually be able to see my

[4:21:46] children, my children's

[4:21:49] children be able to come to

[4:21:50] the community which has such

[4:21:50] diversity and rich history like

[4:21:54] Amber Hills 123 new homes and

[4:21:54] of trying to work together to

[4:21:59] make lemonade out of the out of

[4:21:59] the footnote seven is a great

[4:22:00] opportunity.

[4:22:03] We now have a chance to

[4:22:04] increase the things that we

[4:22:04] need in this community.

[4:22:05] So we're going to start with a

[4:22:08] coalition that's going to

[4:22:09] actually talk about why

[4:22:09] the housing not only bring in

[4:22:10] housing but why brings

[4:22:14] community benefits and

[4:22:15] beautification to this area.

[4:22:15] We're not going to be erased.

[4:22:16] Thank you for the upgrade.

[4:22:21] Thank you, Ozzie.

[4:22:26] We support housing so

[4:22:26] the previous speakers were in

[4:22:32] the right place.

[4:22:32] Good afternoon.

[4:22:33] When I start this my name is

[4:22:34] Housing Ministers and I'm here

[4:22:35] with our community to support

[4:22:36] this appeal.

[4:22:36] The hilltop has been designated

[4:22:39] for public parks since 2015.

[4:22:43] Southeastern San Diego has 64%

[4:22:43] less park space than wealthier

[4:22:44] parts of the city.

[4:22:48] That is not a coincidence.

[4:22:49] It is the result of repeated

[4:22:49] decisions Today this Council

[4:22:53] has the opportunity to make a

[4:22:53] difference.

[4:22:54] This boat is bigger than one

[4:22:57] hilltop in one neighborhood.

[4:22:58] Every San Diego community is

[4:23:02] watching how this council

[4:23:03] treats its public green spaces.

[4:23:08] Every resident wants to know

[4:23:08] that when a community plan

[4:23:09] designates land for a park,

[4:23:12] that promise will be honored.

[4:23:13] Today you have a chance to show

[4:23:14] all of San Diego that this

[4:23:18] council protects public land,

[4:23:18] listens to communities and we

[4:23:21] have alternate places for

[4:23:22] housing.

[4:23:22] >> We support housing.

[4:23:23] I can't afford a house either

[4:23:27] Make the right choices.

[4:23:28] >> Thank you for that

[4:23:29] concluding comment.

[4:23:33] Gregory Gregory Knell or Hill

[4:23:33] After that if I can have Johnny

[4:23:38] leading Jeffrey Shooter DR. For

[4:23:39] Cornwall Clarke and Kimberly

[4:23:42] Reals as well as Lisa and Sarah

[4:23:43] please come up to the front row

[4:23:44] Please begin when ready.

[4:23:47] >> Good afternoon Council

[4:23:48] PRESIDENT And members of

[4:23:48] the Council.

[4:23:49] My name is Greg Hill.

[4:23:50] I'm the local PRESIDENT

[4:23:53] National Association of Real

[4:23:53] Estate Brokers.

[4:23:54] Since 1947 Narev has championed

[4:23:58] the principle of democracy in

[4:23:59] housing, advocating for

[4:23:59] equitable access to housing and

[4:24:03] expanding opportunities for

[4:24:03] families to build stability and

[4:24:04] generational wealth through

[4:24:04] homeownership.

[4:24:08] That is why I'm here today in

[4:24:09] support of the animal health

[4:24:09] development.

[4:24:10] San Diego continues to face a

[4:24:14] critical housing shortage and

[4:24:14] increasing our housing supply

[4:24:15] is an essential part of

[4:24:16] addressing affordability.

[4:24:18] This project helps move in

[4:24:19] the right direction by adding

[4:24:23] much needed homes including

[4:24:24] affordable housing that will

[4:24:25] create opportunities for

[4:24:25] working families, seniors and

[4:24:29] essential workers to remain in

[4:24:29] the communities they serve.

[4:24:30] The annual Hills development is

[4:24:34] also an investment in

[4:24:35] the broader community.

[4:24:36] It includes improvements of

[4:24:36] 16th Street along the new parks

[4:24:37] and trails.

[4:24:40] It'll be open for public use.

[4:24:41] These enhancements improve

[4:24:45] connectivity, expand access to

[4:24:45] recreational space and create

[4:24:46] lasting benefits for both

[4:24:47] current and future.

[4:24:47] >> Thank you for that

[4:24:48] Concluding remark Johnny

[4:24:55] Leading John a leading reader

[4:24:59] going to Jeffrey Shooter.

[4:25:04] >> Thank you Council members.

[4:25:05] You know it's disappointing

[4:25:05] that we got here because

[4:25:09] the city never really tried to

[4:25:10] turn this into a park.

[4:25:10] I mean it's literally the most

[4:25:14] spectacular place in San Diego

[4:25:15] on par with Soledad Mountain.

[4:25:16] And if we were here discussing

[4:25:20] whether to declare Soledad

[4:25:20] mountain surplus land and turn

[4:25:21] it into housing, we would you

[4:25:25] know, we'd be outraged by that

[4:25:26] And we should also be outraged

[4:25:27] about this loss of a resource.

[4:25:30] But given that we're here, what

[4:25:31] this is really going to turn on

[4:25:34] is whether or not Footnote

[4:25:35] seven was legally adopted And

[4:25:36] the question for the city

[4:25:40] attorney is going to be in

[4:25:44] effect as the footnote seven

[4:25:45] only apply to the Choice Valley

[4:25:45] Community Planning Group.

[4:25:51] There are no rs one to what's

[4:25:52] in South Eastern so it really

[4:25:55] only applied to one community

[4:25:55] plan update.

[4:25:56] And if that's the case was it

[4:26:01] legally adopted as opposed to

[4:26:01] go into a community plan

[4:26:02] Update.

[4:26:02] >> Thank you.

[4:26:03] DR. Cornell Cornwell Clark.

[4:26:09] >> Apologies.

[4:26:15] Hello, City Council.

[4:26:16] I'm DR. Carmel Clark and I

[4:26:19] respectfully ask that you

[4:26:19] reject the footnote seven As

[4:26:20] many of us it feels like less

[4:26:21] responsible planning and more

[4:26:24] like a land grab sold to

[4:26:25] the highest bidder.

[4:26:25] As a sociologist I can't ignore

[4:26:30] the historic Eccles While

[4:26:31] people were once bought and

[4:26:32] sold in chattel slavery Today

[4:26:35] it feels as though the land our

[4:26:36] community have built is being

[4:26:37] sold with little regard to

[4:26:37] the people who have called it

[4:26:38] home for generations.

[4:26:42] My parents bought their home in

[4:26:42] 1975 and we still maintain and

[4:26:43] own that property.

[4:26:47] Communities are more than

[4:26:48] property value.

[4:26:49] They are history, relationships

[4:26:54] and legacy.

[4:26:55] Adding more than 100 homes is

[4:26:55] not in the best interest for

[4:26:56] imo.

[4:26:56] Hills It will increase traffic

[4:26:59] sustain our infrastructure and

[4:27:00] permanently change

[4:27:00] the character of the community

[4:27:01] that families like mine have

[4:27:05] invested in for decades.

[4:27:06] This is environmental racism.

[4:27:06] Please put our people before

[4:27:07] profit.

[4:27:14] Reject Footnote seven and

[4:27:14] protect the legacy of imo

[4:27:15] Hills.

[4:27:15] >> I'm from the hills and I'm

[4:27:16] standing on town business.

[4:27:17] I'm DR. Joshua Clark.

[4:27:18] >> Thank you for that

[4:27:18] concluding comment Kimberly

[4:27:24] Real's going there.

[4:27:24] Hello everyone.

[4:27:25] Okay.

[4:27:25] I wasn't really intending to

[4:27:28] speak today but after listening

[4:27:29] to you MR. Boyd I can't help

[4:27:29] myself.

[4:27:35] Unfortunately I just had

[4:27:36] cataract surgery on that thing

[4:27:37] that well so bear with me.

[4:27:41] Okay, so here's the thing I am

[4:27:41] MR. Boyd Horton.

[4:27:47] D.R. Horton began this project

[4:27:47] in 1997 when they bought

[4:27:48] the property.

[4:27:53] Don't I have the paperwork?

[4:27:53] Okay.

[4:27:54] So that So don't And anything I

[4:27:55] say up here.

[4:27:59] I have my receipt.

[4:28:00] I just want you to know that.

[4:28:00] Okay, So here we go.

[4:28:06] So and you you activated it.

[4:28:07] I'm assuming that what you

[4:28:07] waited to do is for council

[4:28:08] because you could have got it

[4:28:11] in through George Stevens.

[4:28:11] So you're waiting for

[4:28:12] representation that was more

[4:28:13] more palatable, more palatable

[4:28:17] to the idea of dense housing

[4:28:18] and less commercial things that

[4:28:18] might bring revenue to

[4:28:24] the community.

[4:28:25] >> But in any case.

[4:28:26] So you know I'm done.

[4:28:30] That is a minute.

[4:28:30] Yes.

[4:28:30] Well.

[4:28:31] You're more than welcome to

[4:28:38] email and any comments to make

[4:28:38] them a part of the record

[4:28:39] The city clerk at San

[4:28:39] diego.Gov.

[4:28:40] And they will be part of

[4:28:41] the But you were good So thank

[4:28:42] you.

[4:28:42] Thank you.

[4:28:48] And if anybody wants the baby I

[4:28:48] got it here.

[4:28:53] >> Our last speaker here and a

[4:28:54] person at least I better at

[4:28:58] least have a thorough your

[4:28:59] final speaker hearing council

[4:29:00] chambers and then we'll go to

[4:29:00] those participating online.

[4:29:05] >> I start I want my family up

[4:29:06] here with me.

[4:29:07] Sure they can come up you if

[4:29:16] you can come up here.

[4:29:18] >> Please note that we are not

[4:29:21] organization.

[4:29:22] This can be part of your

[4:29:23] comments.

[4:29:28] Please begin.

[4:29:28] >> We're talking about a

[4:29:29] project with D.R. Horton.

[4:29:30] Cities across the nation have

[4:29:34] come to city council chambers.

[4:29:34] Residents and city councils

[4:29:35] across the nation have denied

[4:29:39] D.R. Horton from building

[4:29:40] because it's bad business.

[4:29:41] D.R. Horton has lawsuits in

[4:29:45] multiple states for both having

[4:29:51] shoddy frickin shoddy off

[4:29:52] construction right there

[4:29:52] harming their residents After

[4:29:53] they're living in there,

[4:29:57] they're getting frickin sick

[4:29:58] And then they're also saying

[4:29:59] here, take this mortgage and

[4:30:03] then not having proper

[4:30:04] disclosure.

[4:30:04] So when the people are having

[4:30:05] to redo their mortgage after

[4:30:10] their lending arm is done with

[4:30:10] it, their frickin mortgage

[4:30:11] rates go up $1,000.

[4:30:12] You're talking about frickin

[4:30:15] affordable housing That's not

[4:30:16] affordable.

[4:30:16] >> That's not what we need and

[4:30:17] that's not going to help our

[4:30:18] frickin community.

[4:30:21] We need quality construction.

[4:30:21] We need places where I can

[4:30:22] gather my family over there for

[4:30:28] a frickin birthday party for a

[4:30:28] celebration about Thank you for

[4:30:34] not taking advantage and not

[4:30:35] that and I do need to be

[4:30:35] consistent but thank you so

[4:30:39] much for your comments.

[4:30:40] That does conclude public

[4:30:40] comment here in council

[4:30:41] chambers I'm sorry the five

[4:30:42] minute timer and I'm going to

[4:30:45] those participating remotely.

[4:30:46] We currently have 12 speakers

[4:30:46] in the queue.

[4:30:48] Okay I haven't started Please

[4:30:49] come up to the podium.

[4:30:56] >> I'll take your speakers up

[4:30:57] Please be on high.

[4:31:01] >> I think we should all

[4:31:02] consider that if something

[4:31:03] starts and ethically it

[4:31:08] shouldn't be because you

[4:31:09] started something unethical you

[4:31:10] can bury it.

[4:31:10] I'm working construction and

[4:31:11] having construction is also

[4:31:13] going to deteriorate our land

[4:31:14] All of the moving trucks.

[4:31:15] How does anyone actually done

[4:31:19] all of the civil from a third

[4:31:20] party and not from someone

[4:31:20] bought to make all of how are

[4:31:21] we putting all construction

[4:31:25] materials We also have a lot of

[4:31:26] industrial area which means we

[4:31:27] are required to have a land

[4:31:31] environment that is green so

[4:31:31] that we don't have lung issues

[4:31:32] everything else issues I

[4:31:36] understand people wanting

[4:31:37] affordable housing but do you

[4:31:38] want affordable housing where

[4:31:39] people have mold, have issues

[4:31:42] with lungs, have bigger issued

[4:31:43] later down the line where they

[4:31:44] die and then that is more

[4:31:44] costly to the city to go and

[4:31:49] send them to hospitals to have

[4:31:49] all the other issues.

[4:31:50] I don't think you should be

[4:31:50] having this construction

[4:31:55] feeling not just because I but

[4:31:55] like all of the way that it was

[4:31:56] built is not an ethical way as

[4:32:02] a community you want to build

[4:32:02] something on it.

[4:32:03] >> Thank you for that

[4:32:04] concluding remark for

[4:32:04] the record That was my Garcia

[4:32:07] Now I'm sorry the five minute

[4:32:08] timer and I'm going to those

[4:32:09] participating online.

[4:32:09] We have two speakers in

[4:32:11] the queue currently the city

[4:32:18] completes a new you are on

[4:32:24] the left Hello during There's

[4:32:24] one thing I want to make it

[4:32:29] very clear is I support this

[4:32:29] appeal.

[4:32:35] I support Emerald Hills right

[4:32:35] for justice and fight against

[4:32:36] racism And to all these people

[4:32:42] that say no, we need more help,

[4:32:43] we need more housing.

[4:32:43] Where were you the were you

[4:32:48] when projects in more you're

[4:32:49] the same size We're getting

[4:32:54] measly 24 homes and they wanted

[4:32:55] to put 123 here I also have a

[4:33:02] concern with the water main no

[4:33:02] and the on the water main

[4:33:04] report that support that two

[4:33:05] sources or a reservoir and this

[4:33:11] community needs this all these

[4:33:12] people with housing if you want

[4:33:12] to fight for housing you get

[4:33:17] this council to copy Habitat

[4:33:18] for Humanity and what cities in

[4:33:18] Massachusetts are doing with

[4:33:23] lottery system So an $800,000

[4:33:24] homes for 200,000 Your time has

[4:33:28] concluded our time to act

[4:33:35] please on unmute.

[4:33:36] >> Hello my name is Nicole Ali.

[4:33:36] I'm the executive director of

[4:33:37] our Time to Act and a member of

[4:33:38] the Coalition for Equitable

[4:33:41] Development.

[4:33:41] I would like to uplift

[4:33:42] the comments.

[4:33:42] Okay.

[4:33:42] I'm sorry.

[4:33:43] County Vice Chair Monica

[4:33:47] Montgomery Step.

[4:33:48] Large sprawling minimum lot

[4:33:48] sizes are a historically

[4:33:51] segregationist tool and while

[4:33:51] Footnote seven never should

[4:33:52] have targeted the reduction of

[4:33:53] minimum lot sizes in just one

[4:33:53] neighborhood, it does not

[4:33:57] negate the fact that minimizing

[4:33:58] minimum lot sizes reduces

[4:33:58] environmental impacts and

[4:33:59] housing exclusion not increases

[4:33:59] them.

[4:34:04] This project unfortunately

[4:34:05] reduces currently open space

[4:34:05] but with this area being zoned

[4:34:06] as entirely residential and

[4:34:09] without any actual city plans

[4:34:10] to create a park there,

[4:34:11] the inclusion of pocket parks

[4:34:12] and significant infrastructure

[4:34:12] improvements goes towards

[4:34:15] mitigating the impact of this

[4:34:16] new development.

[4:34:17] Ultimately this project will

[4:34:17] significantly increase

[4:34:18] homeownership opportunity in

[4:34:21] this neighborhood and

[4:34:22] additionally the development

[4:34:23] should also increase

[4:34:23] the percentage of and

[4:34:24] affordability of homes in this

[4:34:29] project as outlined by you I

[4:34:29] respectfully ask that you deny

[4:34:30] this appeal and continue to

[4:34:31] encourage greater density in

[4:34:33] every district especially high

[4:34:34] resource areas going forward.

[4:34:35] >> Thank you.

[4:34:35] Thank you.

[4:34:35] Next is John Stump.

[4:34:39] If you can please unmute.

[4:34:40] Thank you very much.

[4:34:45] My concern is that this is a

[4:34:46] quasi judicial hearing.

[4:34:51] Members of the council must be

[4:34:52] free of any apparent or known

[4:34:57] conflict of interest.

[4:34:58] Council PRESIDENT Joe LaCava

[4:35:03] made a very good affirmative

[4:35:04] statement on yesterday's appeal

[4:35:05] and I would expect that all

[4:35:10] current council members would

[4:35:11] make a similar disclosure.

[4:35:11] One of the things that I did

[4:35:16] come up in my mind was

[4:35:17] the employees of council

[4:35:23] members, their agents and

[4:35:23] employees and their conflicts.

[4:35:29] This transfer to the council

[4:35:35] member finally the name of

[4:35:36] the parties in this are

[4:35:36] appellant and Pelly not

[4:35:37] applicant.

[4:35:41] Thank you very much.

[4:35:41] >> Thank you.

[4:35:42] Next is Margaret.

[4:35:44] Margaret very similar if you

[4:35:50] can present you.

[4:35:51] >> Hi, my name is Margaret

[4:35:52] Aparicio, founder of San Diego

[4:35:52] United Communities.

[4:35:56] We don't need more density

[4:35:57] without proper infrastructure.

[4:35:57] What we need is more park

[4:35:58] spaces.

[4:35:58] We were in a major deficit.

[4:36:02] Quick question Where does

[4:36:02] the vp that spoke today

[4:36:03] representing D.R. Horton live?

[4:36:04] Who are they to say that this

[4:36:08] community needs this massive

[4:36:09] monstrous project built and

[4:36:09] the community of Emerald Hills?

[4:36:10] They don't even live there.

[4:36:14] The community is here today to

[4:36:14] say that they don't want this

[4:36:15] project.

[4:36:15] So listen, upstanding United

[4:36:16] Communities is watching all of

[4:36:19] you and your bad decisions.

[4:36:20] No one footnote seven to

[4:36:20] the people of San Diego

[4:36:21] Remember elections are coming

[4:36:21] up.

[4:36:25] Let's vote out these incumbents

[4:36:25] making the wrong decisions.

[4:36:26] The D.R. Horton applicant that

[4:36:27] spoke today was very

[4:36:31] disrespectful by calling up

[4:36:32] concerned neighbors from

[4:36:32] Emerald Hills.

[4:36:33] Why would this council support

[4:36:38] this disgusting disturbing

[4:36:38] behavior from the offices of

[4:36:39] the court?

[4:36:39] And also word on the street is

[4:36:43] that Monica montgomery's

[4:36:44] family's construction company

[4:36:45] will be retained for this

[4:36:45] project.

[4:36:46] It explains why she is so angry

[4:36:49] today.

[4:36:50] >> We have a park deficit in

[4:36:50] San Diego.

[4:36:51] Make the right decision.

[4:36:52] Your time has concluded.

[4:36:56] Jake Buchanan, if you can

[4:37:01] please and you can hear me.

[4:37:01] Yes.

[4:37:02] Please proceed.

[4:37:02] Good afternoon, everyone.

[4:37:03] My name is Jake Buchanan.

[4:37:07] I'm a San Diego resident.

[4:37:08] I'd like to express my support

[4:37:09] for the new housing

[4:37:09] development.

[4:37:13] Our city facing a severe

[4:37:13] housing shortage.

[4:37:14] As we all know, the state of

[4:37:15] California is mandating more

[4:37:18] housing specifically affordable

[4:37:19] housing And a new project like

[4:37:20] this are ones that are exactly

[4:37:25] what we need to provide relief

[4:37:26] for.

[4:37:30] So the addition of the 123 new

[4:37:30] homes including portable units

[4:37:31] is very helpful For first time

[4:37:36] homebuyers like myself that are

[4:37:36] stuck paying premiums on rent

[4:37:37] year after year and are looking

[4:37:42] to get their foot in the door

[4:37:43] and build equity within this

[4:37:43] city.

[4:37:47] So lastly, I believe creating

[4:37:48] more affordability here in a

[4:37:49] very supply constrained city is

[4:37:54] essential for San Diego future

[4:37:54] .

[4:37:55] >> And I thank you for your

[4:37:55] time.

[4:37:56] Thank you.

[4:37:58] The five minute timer did

[4:37:59] conclude that means that there

[4:38:00] are eight speakers in the queue

[4:38:00] and no additional speakers will

[4:38:01] be taken after that.

[4:38:02] Laurie Lipson If you can please

[4:38:08] unmute.

[4:38:08] >> Hello.

[4:38:09] Laurie Lipson Share District

[4:38:09] three.

[4:38:14] Yes we need housing and infill

[4:38:14] is essential to meeting our

[4:38:15] housing needs without sprawl.

[4:38:20] But removing valuable green

[4:38:20] spaces is irresponsible as we

[4:38:21] move into the future and made

[4:38:25] this human caused climate

[4:38:26] crisis.

[4:38:27] No study expert organization or

[4:38:31] government can predict

[4:38:32] the future which is why we need

[4:38:33] to pay attention to what we

[4:38:33] know.

[4:38:37] The climate crisis is real and

[4:38:38] we are a racist country.

[4:38:39] Green spaces are essential

[4:38:43] infrastructure for mental

[4:38:44] health, physical health for

[4:38:44] creating community and for

[4:38:45] helping heal the planet.

[4:38:50] Please grant the appeal and

[4:38:50] deny this project.

[4:38:51] John Elliot if you can please

[4:38:58] unmute.

[4:38:59] >> Good afternoon City Council.

[4:39:00] Your volume is a little low.

[4:39:04] Oh sorry about that.

[4:39:05] I will try to speak louder.

[4:39:05] Can you hear me now?

[4:39:06] Yes.

[4:39:06] We'll reset your time.

[4:39:07] Please proceed.

[4:39:09] Thank you.

[4:39:10] >> We're calling in in support

[4:39:11] of the development.

[4:39:11] However, we do have some

[4:39:16] concerns about community access

[4:39:17] specifically related to pocket

[4:39:17] parks.

[4:39:21] Do those parks include

[4:39:22] restrooms and will they be

[4:39:23] guaranteed the same access or

[4:39:23] will the homeowners association

[4:39:28] be able to restrict access to

[4:39:28] important trails and viewing

[4:39:29] areas in the neighborhood at

[4:39:33] their discretion?

[4:39:34] These pocket parks are

[4:39:34] problematic because generally

[4:39:35] they're managed by private

[4:39:39] security and are highly

[4:39:40] restrictive in who is allowed

[4:39:41] on or off that property.

[4:39:41] Thank you.

[4:39:45] Natalie Raskin If you can

[4:39:49] please unmute.

[4:39:50] >> Hi Natalie.

[4:39:51] My concern is that the project

[4:39:56] overwhelmed only benefits

[4:39:57] the developer not the city and

[4:39:58] certainly not the Encanto

[4:39:58] community.

[4:40:02] D.R. Horton is using the city's

[4:40:03] affordable housing bonus

[4:40:03] program to unlock multiple

[4:40:04] waivers.

[4:40:09] But just like with Depp's

[4:40:09] oversize driveways and other

[4:40:13] exceptions but they are only

[4:40:13] providing 13 units and those

[4:40:14] units are not low income.

[4:40:18] They are moderate income at

[4:40:19] 100%.

[4:40:19] Am I?

[4:40:20] That means the families most in

[4:40:20] need and Encanto will not

[4:40:24] benefit from these so-called

[4:40:24] affordable units.

[4:40:25] Yet those 13 units allow

[4:40:25] the developer to reshape

[4:40:29] the entire subdivision to

[4:40:30] maximize yield and profit.

[4:40:31] These waivers directly increase

[4:40:32] the number of blocks they can

[4:40:35] build which increases their

[4:40:35] revenue.

[4:40:36] Meanwhile, the community

[4:40:37] absorbs the impact loss of open

[4:40:42] space, increased traffic and

[4:40:42] project income and council's

[4:40:43] planning group unanimously

[4:40:44] unanimously opposed When a

[4:40:47] corporate developer uses

[4:40:48] Affordable affordability

[4:40:48] program to gain waivers that

[4:40:49] primarily benefit their bottom

[4:40:54] line while offering bare

[4:40:55] minimum affordability in

[4:40:55] return.

[4:40:56] Your time has converted Blair

[4:40:59] Beekman If you can please

[4:41:00] unmute by Blair Beekman.

[4:41:01] >> Just trying to learn about

[4:41:06] this process.

[4:41:06] >> I think this item was

[4:41:07] something this item was here a

[4:41:07] year ago.

[4:41:11] You know we were talking about

[4:41:11] similar issues and we reached a

[4:41:15] compromise solution instead of

[4:41:16] 120 units that we work on

[4:41:16] something like 40 units and

[4:41:21] work on park space as well and

[4:41:22] that there needs to really be a

[4:41:23] need that we grow into the idea

[4:41:27] more of inviting more community

[4:41:28] groups to the planning process.

[4:41:29] And we have to learn to do that

[4:41:29] better.

[4:41:33] And on top of all of that I'm

[4:41:34] learning the concepts that you

[4:41:34] know before footnote seven

[4:41:39] there was a real racial problem

[4:41:40] in history in this area that a

[4:41:41] lot of people all

[4:41:45] African-American people in

[4:41:46] the neighborhood feel that

[4:41:46] putting a park there

[4:41:47] memorializes a really bad

[4:41:51] racist tradition.

[4:41:52] We have to have those

[4:41:52] conversations more clearly

[4:41:53] openly and talking about

[4:41:54] the very interesting

[4:41:57] environmental ideas for

[4:41:58] the future of the area because

[4:41:59] look how that conversation can

[4:41:59] develop.

[4:42:00] >> Thank you.

[4:42:01] Thank you.

[4:42:07] >> Next is Angela Harris.

[4:42:13] Hi.

[4:42:13] We can hear you.

[4:42:14] Please proceed.

[4:42:14] Okay.

[4:42:15] Thank you.

[4:42:19] Let me just say for the record

[4:42:20] that what you see sitting in

[4:42:20] those seats and those yellow

[4:42:25] shirts, they don't necessarily

[4:42:26] represent district four.

[4:42:26] They are outliers.

[4:42:30] And I stand with over 30

[4:42:30] families who want to deny this

[4:42:31] appeal.

[4:42:31] You want the council to deny

[4:42:36] this appeal unanimously?

[4:42:37] All of my 30 families live in

[4:42:37] the District four not like many

[4:42:41] of the other paid carpetbaggers

[4:42:42] sitting in the council chamber.

[4:42:42] I have all my current home and

[4:42:46] skyline for more than 22 years

[4:42:47] and have lived with Council

[4:42:47] District four for over 40

[4:42:48] years.

[4:42:48] When I was looking to buy there

[4:42:52] was a a a strong push for

[4:42:53] single family detached homes.

[4:42:53] And I am grateful that those

[4:42:54] opportunities existed.

[4:42:58] I believe we need more single

[4:42:59] family detached housing in

[4:42:59] the area.

[4:43:00] Expanding those housing options

[4:43:04] is important and we want to

[4:43:05] attach resources and amenities

[4:43:05] to our communities like grocery

[4:43:09] stores and additional

[4:43:09] restaurants and border

[4:43:10] investments and support for

[4:43:11] the arts and cultural the Black

[4:43:16] arts and culture district.

[4:43:17] I am disappointed that many of

[4:43:18] my home owners seem ready to

[4:43:18] close the door to himself

[4:43:23] including my apologies Amanda

[4:43:23] if you can please On you Amanda

[4:43:28] if you can please On you.

[4:43:28] Okay.

[4:43:28] Sorry.

[4:43:29] Sorry I'm here.

[4:43:29] Please proceed.

[4:43:35] Just wanted to say I cannot get

[4:43:35] over the irony that in that

[4:43:39] very room yesterday city

[4:43:44] council debated approving a

[4:43:45] 5478 square foot single family

[4:43:46] home one home in La Hoya.

[4:43:49] >> And here we are today

[4:43:50] debating 5000 square foot lots

[4:43:51] and animal health at the moment

[4:43:51] with that community member I'm

[4:43:55] speaking in solidarity.

[4:43:55] I've seen firsthand the fact

[4:43:56] that council members like Raul

[4:44:01] Campo not protecting his

[4:44:02] community from overdevelopment.

[4:44:02] I urge you all today to help

[4:44:07] COUNCILMAN Foster protect his

[4:44:07] for him today.

[4:44:08] The transit density loophole up

[4:44:09] for 26 units to be built on a

[4:44:13] quiet residential street next

[4:44:13] door to my stepdad where two

[4:44:14] single family homes used to be

[4:44:17] with no parking requirements.

[4:44:18] 50 minutes on Google Maps to

[4:44:19] the nearest grocery store would

[4:44:23] be a public transit.

[4:44:24] They are sick and tired of our

[4:44:25] city council collecting impact

[4:44:25] fees that go to other

[4:44:26] neighborhoods and watching

[4:44:29] developers rake in profits

[4:44:30] while the taxpayers pay

[4:44:30] the permanent costs of

[4:44:31] rezoning.

[4:44:31] >> I have concluded my

[4:44:32] apologies Nina Sanchez if you

[4:44:36] can please unmute.

[4:44:43] Senior Sanchez There you go.

[4:44:44] >> You are And we did not hear

[4:44:45] you here in council chambers.

[4:44:48] I'm not sure if the device they

[4:44:49] are speaking into to maybe

[4:44:49] muted.

[4:44:49] >> Can you hear me now,

[4:44:50] COUNCILMAN?

[4:44:50] Yes we can.

[4:44:54] Please proceed.

[4:44:54] Thank you.

[4:44:55] For nearly a century our Bipoc

[4:44:56] families in San Diego being

[4:44:56] told where we can and cannot

[4:45:00] live be forced into communities

[4:45:00] like Logan and County Council

[4:45:01] on Emerald Hills.

[4:45:06] Then after generations of

[4:45:07] sacrifice and best for me and

[4:45:07] resilient after we built these

[4:45:08] communities and what's in what

[4:45:10] they are today the rule,

[4:45:11] the change once again.

[4:45:11] Now of course the declining

[4:45:12] high density development among

[4:45:15] transit corridors and less

[4:45:16] chance for homeownership more

[4:45:16] lifelong renters.

[4:45:17] This isn't about equity when

[4:45:17] the result is that working

[4:45:21] families lose their chance to

[4:45:22] build wealth while developers

[4:45:22] continue to profit 100%.

[4:45:23] Am I really?

[4:45:26] Most people in Southeast are at

[4:45:27] 30% or below.

[4:45:27] Our communities have already

[4:45:28] endured segregation,

[4:45:32] environmental racism,

[4:45:33] displacement in decades,

[4:45:34] the disinvestment and now we're

[4:45:34] expected to quietly accept

[4:45:39] policies that bear and push us

[4:45:40] out of the very neighborhoods

[4:45:41] our parents and grandparents

[4:45:41] fought to hold on to.

[4:45:42] If equity is truly our goal

[4:45:43] this naturally black and brown

[4:45:44] communities like where you're

[4:45:45] guinea pigs or lab rats, cattle

[4:45:48] servants or your property we

[4:45:49] deserve the same opportunity as

[4:45:50] everyone else not just to rent

[4:45:50] but to own to build

[4:45:51] generational wealth and to

[4:45:53] remain in the communities we

[4:45:54] created.

[4:45:54] Stop measuring success by how

[4:45:55] many?

[4:45:58] Your time has concluded.

[4:45:59] Christine Walbourne Your final

[4:46:03] speaker Christine Walbourne.

[4:46:03] Hi.

[4:46:04] Can you hear me?

[4:46:04] Yes.

[4:46:05] Please proceed.

[4:46:09] Hi, I'm in District one and I'm

[4:46:10] calling to ask you to please

[4:46:14] support the appeal.

[4:46:15] I attended the city council

[4:46:16] meeting I think it was in

[4:46:18] DECEMBER about footnote seven

[4:46:18] and I was so impressed with

[4:46:19] the community and how many

[4:46:23] people showed up.

[4:46:24] And so I just want to support

[4:46:25] the community and it's time to

[4:46:29] listen to these people and put

[4:46:29] them above developers.

[4:46:30] So I would appreciate you

[4:46:34] please supporting the appeal.

[4:46:35] >> Thank you.

[4:46:35] Thank you.

[4:46:36] I would like to note for

[4:46:39] the record that we did receive

[4:46:39] four people that submitted

[4:46:40] would like to register their

[4:46:41] position in favor but did not

[4:46:44] wish to speak and six submitted

[4:46:45] would like to register their

[4:46:45] position in opposition but did

[4:46:46] not wish to speak.

[4:46:49] That does conclude public

[4:46:50] comment for this item.

[4:46:50] Council PRESIDENT Thank you.

[4:46:51] All right.

[4:46:51] Thank you City Clerk As I like

[4:46:54] to do when we have these

[4:46:55] heavily attended meetings

[4:46:55] please join me in giving a

[4:46:56] round of applause to our city

[4:47:02] clerk and her entire team.

[4:47:07] >> It is not easy but you did a

[4:47:07] masterful job as you always do

[4:47:08] And as was emphasized, this is

[4:47:12] only the second day of

[4:47:12] implementing implementing

[4:47:15] Senate Bill 707 and it seems

[4:47:16] like it's working very well.

[4:47:21] So at least the early stages of

[4:47:21] that.

[4:47:22] Okay, let's get on.

[4:47:22] So this is now an opportunity

[4:47:26] for the council to weigh in for

[4:47:26] any questions, comments and

[4:47:27] entertain a motion and we will

[4:47:30] start with the council member

[4:47:31] from District four.

[4:47:35] Council Member Foster Yes,

[4:47:35] Thank you Council PRESIDENT And

[4:47:40] thank you to staff for your

[4:47:44] presentation and your work on

[4:47:49] this.

[4:47:50] Also I'd like to thank my

[4:47:54] colleague Supervisor Monica

[4:47:54] Montgomery Step for attending

[4:47:59] today's hearing and providing

[4:47:59] comment and having had

[4:48:04] the honor to serve as her chief

[4:48:05] of staff I can tell you that

[4:48:08] her comments were not

[4:48:09] supporting D.R. Horton,

[4:48:13] the company.

[4:48:14] Rather it was supporting

[4:48:14] opportunity.

[4:48:18] It was supporting generational

[4:48:19] wealth and allowing families

[4:48:20] access to a home They can feel

[4:48:27] safe in a okay, this is

[4:48:28] the second morning we sat here,

[4:48:31] listened to all the testimony

[4:48:32] both for and against mouth.

[4:48:36] The council members chant Give

[4:48:36] them an opportunity to speak.

[4:48:40] You can raise your probably

[4:48:41] lower your thumb.

[4:48:41] >> That's the way to

[4:48:45] communicate with us.

[4:48:45] My apologies.

[4:48:46] Council member foster Thank

[4:48:46] you.

[4:48:50] Council PRESIDENT Her comments

[4:48:54] were not supporting D.R. Horton

[4:48:55] .

[4:48:55] The company rather was

[4:48:56] supporting Opportunity

[4:48:59] generational wealth and

[4:49:00] allowing families access to a

[4:49:01] home they can feel safe in and

[4:49:04] have pride of ownership.

[4:49:05] I want to begin also by

[4:49:08] recognizing the Choice Valley

[4:49:09] Community Planning Group and

[4:49:10] the residents of Emerald Hills

[4:49:13] and their surrounding

[4:49:14] neighborhoods.

[4:49:15] I know you have spent a lot of

[4:49:18] time attending meetings,

[4:49:19] reviewing documents, submitting

[4:49:23] comments and raising concerns

[4:49:28] about the project and I do

[4:49:28] believe your concerns deserve

[4:49:31] direct answers.

[4:49:32] >> The appeal before us today

[4:49:33] and this is a question for

[4:49:37] staff is an appeal of

[4:49:38] the project and not an appeal

[4:49:41] of the addendum to the project

[4:49:42] program Environmental Impact

[4:49:42] Report prepared by the City of

[4:49:46] San Diego as a lead agency.

[4:49:47] >> Is that correct?

[4:49:47] That is correct.

[4:49:51] Councilmember Foster Thank you.

[4:49:52] >> I will say that the appeal

[4:49:55] highlights several concerns

[4:49:55] including traffic, fire safety

[4:49:56] and several other potential

[4:50:00] impacts.

[4:50:01] Those are not small issues.

[4:50:02] They involve the safety

[4:50:06] sustainable ity and future of

[4:50:06] this community.

[4:50:10] They are valid concerns and

[4:50:11] the city should perform as due

[4:50:11] diligence and address

[4:50:12] the concerns of the impacted

[4:50:17] community.

[4:50:18] >> Before getting into my

[4:50:19] questions we need to be honest

[4:50:19] about the history that shaped

[4:50:22] this community.

[4:50:23] District four like many

[4:50:24] communities across the country

[4:50:27] has dealt with discriminatory

[4:50:28] housing policies, disinvestment

[4:50:31] and bad planning decisions.

[4:50:32] These policies did not happen

[4:50:33] by accident.

[4:50:37] They determine where black

[4:50:37] families and non-whites could

[4:50:41] live.

[4:50:42] They determine who had access

[4:50:42] to homeownership.

[4:50:46] They protected wealth and

[4:50:46] opportunity in some communities

[4:50:51] while concentrating poverty and

[4:50:51] limiting opportunity in others.

[4:50:55] >> In the 19 40s and 1950s,

[4:50:56] black and brown families could

[4:51:00] not simply buy a home anywhere

[4:51:00] in San Diego and Emerald Hills

[4:51:05] was one of those communities a

[4:51:10] community that denied nonwhite

[4:51:10] families opportunities because

[4:51:11] of the color of their skin.

[4:51:15] Thanks to the work of

[4:51:16] individuals like Judge Alpha,

[4:51:16] Lavonne Montgomery and others,

[4:51:20] many of those families

[4:51:20] eventually found a pathway to

[4:51:21] homeownership in southeastern

[4:51:24] San Diego including Valencia

[4:51:28] Park Encanto Skyline and

[4:51:29] Emerald Hills.

[4:51:30] My own family was among

[4:51:30] the first generations of black

[4:51:34] families able to become

[4:51:35] homeowners in Valencia Park.

[4:51:39] That home provided stability.

[4:51:39] It gave my family an asset.

[4:51:40] It gave us something we could

[4:51:44] build on and pass down.

[4:51:45] It helped my parents put two

[4:51:48] children through college.

[4:51:49] That is generational wealth.

[4:51:49] Today the children and

[4:51:53] grandchildren of many of those

[4:51:54] same families cannot afford to

[4:51:55] buy a home in the community.

[4:51:58] Their families helped to build.

[4:52:02] District four has limited for

[4:52:03] sale housing while continued to

[4:52:04] receive hundreds of deed

[4:52:07] restricted rental units.

[4:52:08] I have stood with my community

[4:52:08] against the continued

[4:52:12] concentration of poverty in our

[4:52:12] district.

[4:52:13] >> The city recently settled a

[4:52:17] lawsuit Baker versus City of

[4:52:18] San Diego to further mitigate

[4:52:19] the concentration of poverty

[4:52:22] and saturation of deed

[4:52:23] restricted units in communities

[4:52:23] like District four.

[4:52:27] And I have been clear that we

[4:52:27] must have a balanced housing

[4:52:31] approach that includes real

[4:52:31] opportunities for

[4:52:32] homeownership.

[4:52:36] We need homes that working

[4:52:36] families can purchase.

[4:52:37] >> Our teachers, nurses,

[4:52:41] firefighters.

[4:52:41] Public safety professionals.

[4:52:42] Skilled workers.

[4:52:42] Parents.

[4:52:46] Young adults and working

[4:52:46] families deserve

[4:52:47] the opportunity to own a home,

[4:52:50] raise their families here and

[4:52:51] build something they can pass

[4:52:52] on to their children.

[4:52:55] That has been my position from

[4:52:56] the beginning.

[4:52:56] A balanced housing approach

[4:53:00] Stronger pathways to

[4:53:01] homeownership and an end to

[4:53:02] concentrating deed restricted

[4:53:05] units in communities like

[4:53:06] District four.

[4:53:10] Now let's also talk honestly

[4:53:11] about large minimum lots sizes.

[4:53:14] Large minimum lot requirements

[4:53:15] are often presented as if they

[4:53:19] are harmless and they are not.

[4:53:20] These policies were used to

[4:53:21] protect wealthy communities

[4:53:24] from change and keep black

[4:53:25] families brown families,

[4:53:26] immigrants and working class

[4:53:29] people out.

[4:53:30] They made land more expensive.

[4:53:34] They limited the number of

[4:53:35] homes that could be built.

[4:53:35] And they kept homeownership out

[4:53:39] of reach for people who were

[4:53:39] not already wealthy.

[4:53:40] As I pointed out last year,

[4:53:44] studies consistently show large

[4:53:44] minimum lot sizes limit

[4:53:45] opportunities for single family

[4:53:48] home ownership, increase

[4:53:49] housing costs, deepen

[4:53:49] inequality and encourage

[4:53:54] greater reliance on rental

[4:53:54] focused multifamily

[4:53:55] development.

[4:53:58] >> Let me be clear.

[4:53:59] >> Large minimum lot

[4:54:03] requirements are racist.

[4:54:04] >> >> They have discriminatory

[4:54:08] impacts and were used to

[4:54:09] exclude people of color.

[4:54:09] Some people MAY be

[4:54:13] uncomfortable hearing that.

[4:54:13] And I say good that history

[4:54:17] should not make us

[4:54:18] uncomfortable.

[4:54:19] What I am not going to do is to

[4:54:23] water down the truth to make

[4:54:24] people feel better about

[4:54:24] policies that were designed to

[4:54:27] keep families like mine out of

[4:54:28] certain neighborhoods.

[4:54:31] We must stop sanitizing history

[4:54:32] .

[4:54:32] These were not neutral planning

[4:54:33] decisions that somehow produced

[4:54:37] unequal outcomes.

[4:54:38] They were adopted and used to

[4:54:39] control who had access to land

[4:54:42] housing, good schools, public

[4:54:43] investment and wealth.

[4:54:46] When people defend those

[4:54:47] barriers without acknowledging

[4:54:47] who they were built to exclude,

[4:54:51] they are defending the result

[4:54:51] of the racist policy.

[4:54:56] They MAY not like hearing that

[4:54:56] but discovering the discomfort

[4:55:01] does not make the history

[4:55:01] untrue.

[4:55:02] And we cannot address inequity

[4:55:06] while refusing to name what and

[4:55:06] who created it.

[4:55:09] Which leads me to footnote

[4:55:09] seven.

[4:55:10] There seems to be individuals

[4:55:11] in District four that are

[4:55:14] intentionally misinforming our

[4:55:15] community about the origins of

[4:55:15] Footnote seven.

[4:55:19] I have said this publicly from

[4:55:20] this diocese and will again

[4:55:23] state for the record that no

[4:55:24] one and I mean no one in

[4:55:24] the district for office

[4:55:28] generated Footnote seven.

[4:55:29] But what we do know is that

[4:55:33] footnote seven was generated

[4:55:33] during former Mayor Kevin

[4:55:37] Faulkner's administration.

[4:55:38] This is not fake news.

[4:55:42] This is fact.

[4:55:43] So for those that stand with

[4:55:43] Kevin Faulkner and are

[4:55:47] supported by Kevin Faulkner,

[4:55:47] you want answers?

[4:55:51] >> You should start there with

[4:55:52] your friend to further

[4:55:52] illustrate the process

[4:55:56] surrounding Footnote seven.

[4:55:56] I would like to introduce a

[4:55:57] summary of the actions as part

[4:56:01] of the legislative record here

[4:56:01] today.

[4:56:02] If you can bring up

[4:56:08] correspondence number eight you

[4:56:09] can get one of those comments

[4:56:09] Five minutes.

[4:56:12] >> All right.

[4:56:12] Thank you.

[4:56:13] This I will not go through

[4:56:18] the entire record but I want to

[4:56:18] provide it so that everyone can

[4:56:21] see every step that took place

[4:56:22] with footnote seven.

[4:56:23] And I will say this The first

[4:56:26] time it was introduced to

[4:56:27] the Community Planners

[4:56:31] Committee, the chair of

[4:56:32] the Choice Valley Community

[4:56:36] Planning Group was present.

[4:56:37] And you can go back and look at

[4:56:37] the meeting minutes and pull

[4:56:41] the verification in.

[4:56:42] So I will leave that there for

[4:56:45] the public to see.

[4:56:46] >> Footnote seven Reduced

[4:56:50] minimum lot sizes in Encanto

[4:56:51] and southeastern San Diego

[4:56:52] without applying that same

[4:56:52] policy citywide.

[4:56:56] Irene I moved to repeal

[4:56:57] Footnote seven because

[4:57:00] the process was not transparent

[4:57:01] ,consistent or inclusive.

[4:57:01] The planning director

[4:57:05] acknowledged that it was not

[4:57:06] handled in accordance with city

[4:57:06] policies and best practices.

[4:57:09] Throughout this discussion

[4:57:10] there have been references to

[4:57:11] furthering fair housing.

[4:57:15] As noted per the staff report

[4:57:15] from the Planning Commission

[4:57:18] dated JANUARY 10th 2020 five

[4:57:19] reducing the discriminatory

[4:57:22] large loss minimums from 20,000

[4:57:23] square foot to 5000 square foot

[4:57:27] has led to affirmatively

[4:57:28] furthering fair housing.

[4:57:28] >> Footnote seven allowed

[4:57:32] market rate for sale single

[4:57:33] family homes in low resource

[4:57:37] communities Consistent with

[4:57:37] plan densities in the 2015

[4:57:42] Encanto Community plan and does

[4:57:42] not contradict fair housing

[4:57:43] policies.

[4:57:47] >> In addition, it's important

[4:57:48] important to point out that

[4:57:51] the surrounding parcels to

[4:57:52] the north, south and west of

[4:57:53] the Radio towers parcel are all

[4:57:56] zoned rs1-7.

[4:58:01] So to be clear all the homes on

[4:58:05] old memory lane are zoned

[4:58:05] rs1-7.

[4:58:06] Just like the proposed project

[4:58:10] before this council today.

[4:58:11] >> So it's clear we need zoning

[4:58:11] reforms that promote equitable

[4:58:15] home ownership.

[4:58:16] We must champion zoning reforms

[4:58:19] that prioritize for sale homes

[4:58:20] and promote equitable access to

[4:58:21] homeownership citywide making

[4:58:24] our city a place where more

[4:58:25] residents can thrive.

[4:58:29] It is ever so critical that we

[4:58:29] support balanced for sale

[4:58:30] housing options in District

[4:58:34] four to ensure our sustainable

[4:58:34] city while ensuring we preserve

[4:58:35] community character.

[4:58:38] Repealing Footnote seven was a

[4:58:39] difficult decision for me but

[4:58:43] the right decision at the time

[4:58:44] and it's also the right

[4:58:48] decision for the city to roll

[4:58:49] up their sleeves, engage

[4:58:49] the public and further vet up

[4:58:53] zoning r's 1-2 large law

[4:58:54] minimums citywide and expand

[4:58:58] for sale single family home

[4:58:59] opportunities.

[4:58:59] As I have said on several

[4:59:03] occasions, I want every family,

[4:59:07] every young person in District

[4:59:07] four to have the same

[4:59:08] opportunities that I have had

[4:59:08] in homeownership.

[4:59:12] The building of generational

[4:59:12] wealth is critical to long term

[4:59:17] sustainability and success.

[4:59:17] Before I start with my project

[4:59:21] specific question I do have a

[4:59:22] few questions for the city

[4:59:26] attorney.

[4:59:26] I see that the staff has

[4:59:27] provided a copy of the city

[4:59:30] attorney's report to Council

[4:59:31] regarding Senate Bill 330 also

[4:59:35] known as the Housing Crisis Act

[4:59:35] of 2019 which is a direct

[4:59:36] response to a statewide housing

[4:59:40] emergency.

[4:59:45] Sb 330 is still effective if

[4:59:46] you can confirm sb 330 is still

[4:59:46] in effect and this project is

[4:59:50] subject to sb 330.

[4:59:51] >> Is that correct?

[4:59:55] I would ask Chief Deputy City

[4:59:56] Attorney Karen New four to

[4:59:56] respond to your question

[4:59:57] please.

[4:59:59] Yes, Thank you.

[5:00:00] Thank you for that question.

[5:00:01] It is still in effect in this

[5:00:04] project is subject to that

[5:00:05] bill.

[5:00:05] >> Thank you for that.

[5:00:09] Per the report it indicates

[5:00:09] that the city MAY deny a

[5:00:10] housing development project or

[5:00:14] impose a condition that

[5:00:14] the project be developed at a

[5:00:15] lower density.

[5:00:16] After making written findings

[5:00:19] based on a preponderance of

[5:00:20] evidence in the administrative

[5:00:21] record that the project would

[5:00:24] have a specific adverse impact

[5:00:25] on public health or safety and

[5:00:28] there is no other feasible

[5:00:29] method to satisfactorily

[5:00:33] mitigate or avoid the adverse

[5:00:33] impact.

[5:00:34] Is that correct?

[5:00:34] That is correct.

[5:00:39] Question for you What does no

[5:00:39] other feasible method to

[5:00:43] satisfactorily mitigate or

[5:00:44] avoid the adverse impact mean?

[5:00:48] >> Well it would depend on what

[5:00:49] the impact is.

[5:00:53] So for instance, if there is an

[5:00:57] impact that would have been

[5:00:58] caused by traffic or fire, you

[5:01:02] would look at what was causing

[5:01:03] that impact and how to avoid it

[5:01:03] or to mitigate for it.

[5:01:07] But it really is very specific

[5:01:08] to what the impact is.

[5:01:12] So in short, just for further

[5:01:12] clarification, if an adverse

[5:01:17] impact does identify and there

[5:01:17] is an acceptable means to

[5:01:21] mitigate legally we should move

[5:01:27] forward with the project based

[5:01:27] on the mitigation if it needs

[5:01:31] to be about it That is what

[5:01:32] the Housing Accountability Act

[5:01:32] requires.

[5:01:41] >> Thank you for that.

[5:01:45] >> If mitigations are provided

[5:01:46] that address the alleged

[5:01:46] adverse impacts on public

[5:01:50] health or safety and the city

[5:01:51] denies the project, what are

[5:01:51] the potential legal

[5:01:54] consequences and trigger of

[5:01:59] the builder's remedy statutes

[5:01:59] if challenged?

[5:02:04] A court could find that

[5:02:04] the city is out of compliance

[5:02:05] with the act.

[5:02:09] There would be a mandatory

[5:02:09] order to go back and be in

[5:02:10] compliance with the Act which

[5:02:14] could include the city being

[5:02:15] required to approve

[5:02:15] the project.

[5:02:19] Mandatory attorneys fees and

[5:02:20] costs and possibly fines.

[5:02:24] >> Thank you for that

[5:02:24] clarification.

[5:02:25] >> Lastly, your office did

[5:02:28] prepare a memorandum regarding

[5:02:29] footnote seven.

[5:02:30] Can you confirm that has

[5:02:33] indicated further memorandum?

[5:02:34] No evidence has been provided

[5:02:35] to date indicating that

[5:02:38] Footnote seven violates federal

[5:02:39] and state equal protection, due

[5:02:39] process and fair housing laws.

[5:02:43] >> Yes, that is correct.

[5:02:44] >> That memo is in the backup

[5:02:45] materials for this item also.

[5:02:48] Thank you for that

[5:02:49] clarification.

[5:02:50] >> With that I'll move on to my

[5:02:53] questions regarding the appeal

[5:02:54] before us today.

[5:02:58] I will start with city staff.

[5:02:59] Some of this is noted in

[5:03:03] the staff report that I think

[5:03:04] was done that that is quite

[5:03:07] thorough but it is a proposed

[5:03:07] development site in the current

[5:03:08] adopted general plan indicated

[5:03:12] as being a park.

[5:03:13] It is not indicated as a park

[5:03:16] in the general plan.

[5:03:17] >> Thank you for that.

[5:03:21] Does the proposed project far

[5:03:22] exceed the 024 dwelling units

[5:03:26] per acre density for which

[5:03:26] the site is owned?

[5:03:31] A clarification on that

[5:03:31] The site is zoned different but

[5:03:32] it is within the density that

[5:03:36] is allowed within the community

[5:03:37] plan which allows up to four

[5:03:38] dwelling units per acre which

[5:03:38] would equal for this project

[5:03:41] site.

[5:03:42] 125 units and they're proposing

[5:03:42] 123.

[5:03:45] Thank you for that

[5:03:46] clarification.

[5:03:46] Is the proposed project

[5:03:50] inconsistent with the 2015

[5:03:51] Choice Valley Community Plan as

[5:03:55] shown in staff's presentation?

[5:03:56] The project is consistent with

[5:03:59] I would say a majority of

[5:04:00] the applicable regulations

[5:04:00] related to residential

[5:04:01] development.

[5:04:04] >> So it meets general

[5:04:04] conformance.

[5:04:05] It is in general conformance.

[5:04:05] Yes sir.

[5:04:09] Thank you.

[5:04:10] >> And I will ask this again Is

[5:04:11] the 0 to 4 dwelling units per

[5:04:14] acre density consistent with

[5:04:15] the density of the existing of

[5:04:19] the existing development around

[5:04:19] the proposed development site?

[5:04:24] It is consistent with

[5:04:25] the developments located to

[5:04:25] the north, south and west.

[5:04:28] It would differ from

[5:04:29] the development the existing

[5:04:30] residential dwelling units that

[5:04:33] are located to the east.

[5:04:33] >> Thank you for that.

[5:04:34] It has been alleged that

[5:04:38] the proposed project site is an

[5:04:39] indigenous Cuzmy burial site.

[5:04:43] Is this accurate?

[5:04:44] And can you elaborate on

[5:04:45] the city's environmental review

[5:04:48] and tribal consultation process

[5:04:49] and what has been done for this

[5:04:49] project to date and what will

[5:04:52] take place if the project moves

[5:04:53] forward?

[5:04:53] Today an archeological report

[5:04:57] was prepared for the project

[5:04:58] site and there was no evidence

[5:05:02] of any former burial sites

[5:05:03] located on the site and what

[5:05:07] will take place moving forward.

[5:05:08] If this site if this project

[5:05:12] moves forward in regards to

[5:05:17] archeological mitigation So

[5:05:17] the project per municipal code,

[5:05:21] the project per municipal code

[5:05:22] requirements would be required

[5:05:22] to have archeological

[5:05:25] monitoring on site during

[5:05:30] grading operations.

[5:05:30] Thank you for that.

[5:05:31] So there'll be onsite

[5:05:35] monitoring through the process.

[5:05:36] Can you explain what happens if

[5:05:38] there is a potentially a

[5:05:43] finding?

[5:05:44] If there is we would be city

[5:05:47] staff would be notified and

[5:05:48] then we would contact

[5:05:52] the applicable Native American

[5:05:53] tribes for continued inspection

[5:05:56] on the site.

[5:06:01] Thank you for that.

[5:06:02] >> My next question is in

[5:06:06] regards to the development

[5:06:07] impact fees.

[5:06:07] Do we know what the total

[5:06:08] estimated amount of development

[5:06:12] impact fees for this project?

[5:06:16] What they will be approximately

[5:06:17] The impact fees are calculated

[5:06:18] at the time of submittal for

[5:06:22] ministerial building permits.

[5:06:23] But at this at this time we

[5:06:23] have estimated that the impact

[5:06:27] fees would be roughly.

[5:06:31] Sorry to say it's 3.3.4.

[5:06:32] I'm sorry we've got some error

[5:06:37] here from planning that could

[5:06:37] answer that.

[5:06:38] Good afternoon everyone.

[5:06:38] I'm semi-rural with Stonebridge

[5:06:41] director with City Planning.

[5:06:42] The estimated development and

[5:06:42] practice with this project is

[5:06:43] around $3.5 million.

[5:06:45] About 3.5.

[5:06:46] And can you let me can you

[5:06:50] indicate what types of projects

[5:06:51] or infrastructure improvements

[5:06:55] can these funds be used

[5:06:55] towards?

[5:06:56] >> This project would be

[5:07:00] subject to citywide fees and

[5:07:01] under that it's for different

[5:07:01] asset types of mobility fire

[5:07:03] libraries and parks.

[5:07:08] Thank you for that.

[5:07:13] >> The and I think I just

[5:07:14] before I move on from the fees

[5:07:18] and I will I do don't see

[5:07:22] the mayor's representative here

[5:07:23] is quoting here or anyone here.

[5:07:25] I'll address it towards

[5:07:30] the latter part of my comments

[5:07:30] .

[5:07:31] Moving on I do also share our

[5:07:35] concerns about traffic and

[5:07:36] emergency access and

[5:07:36] evacuation.

[5:07:37] And I guess if we have a

[5:07:41] traffic engineer available,

[5:07:41] the 60 year street and

[5:07:42] the proposed developer

[5:07:44] improvements meet the city's

[5:07:45] requirements in the street

[5:07:45] design manual.

[5:07:49] We have a member of our

[5:07:49] transportation staff that can

[5:07:54] answer that question.

[5:07:55] >> Hi, my name is Megalith.

[5:07:55] I'm an associate traffic

[5:07:56] engineer with development

[5:07:59] services and yes Project Access

[5:08:00] in 60th Street meets Current

[5:08:06] City Requirements.

[5:08:06] Thank you for that.

[5:08:07] Also it's my understanding that

[5:08:11] the traffic report indicated

[5:08:12] that two point shy of meeting

[5:08:16] the traffic threshold for

[5:08:16] mitigation.

[5:08:17] Also I understand that

[5:08:17] the proposed development entry

[5:08:21] point will be under signalized

[5:08:22] and will only include a stop

[5:08:26] sign for the vehicles exiting

[5:08:26] the proposed development site.

[5:08:30] Can you let me know Can you

[5:08:31] explain how did the city make

[5:08:35] that determination?

[5:08:36] Sure.

[5:08:36] The project prepared both a

[5:08:37] local mobility analysis which

[5:08:40] is what our operational

[5:08:41] analysis is as well as a vmt

[5:08:45] analysis to evaluate

[5:08:45] the potential significant

[5:08:46] transportation impacts under

[5:08:50] Sequa.

[5:08:50] Under Sequa The project is

[5:08:53] located in Census tract 30.01

[5:08:54] and it would be expected that a

[5:08:57] vmt per capita of 16.9 miles

[5:08:58] per resident.

[5:09:01] Therefore the project would be

[5:09:02] expected to result in a

[5:09:03] significant transportation vmt

[5:09:03] impact.

[5:09:07] The project has selected three

[5:09:07] different mitigation measures

[5:09:08] worth five points and through a

[5:09:12] vmt analysis showed that it

[5:09:13] would be able to bring its

[5:09:13] significant impact down to a

[5:09:17] level of less than

[5:09:18] significance.

[5:09:18] That was the 5.1.

[5:09:19] Sorry Council member If I can

[5:09:21] ask to have to go to the other

[5:09:22] mic and speak a little bit more

[5:09:23] directly into the mic.

[5:09:23] People are having a hard time

[5:09:24] listening.

[5:09:26] I apologize.

[5:09:27] >> Councilmember Thank you.

[5:09:28] Thank you for that.

[5:09:31] And in just so I'm clear, this

[5:09:35] is one of those instances where

[5:09:35] an impact was identified

[5:09:40] mitigation was put in place.

[5:09:40] Correct.

[5:09:44] Therefore continuing to move

[5:09:45] forward in regards to that

[5:09:45] item.

[5:09:46] Correct.

[5:09:46] Yes.

[5:09:46] Thank you.

[5:09:49] That's correct.

[5:09:49] Also there is a minor street

[5:09:54] stop control at the exit of

[5:09:55] what's called Street a on

[5:09:58] the development plans and 60th

[5:09:58] Street.

[5:09:59] And that is an appropriate

[5:09:59] traffic control for this type

[5:10:03] of development.

[5:10:04] And that's why staff did not

[5:10:04] request an always stop analysis

[5:10:08] or a traffic signal to be

[5:10:09] further analyzed.

[5:10:13] >> Thank you for that.

[5:10:17] >> The I guess what I find

[5:10:18] interesting is that

[5:10:19] the representative from Doe

[5:10:22] Horton indicated that

[5:10:23] the current construction

[5:10:27] the current site conditions

[5:10:31] does not meet certain standards

[5:10:32] that it should meet.

[5:10:32] >> Is that correct?

[5:10:36] I guess that's correct.

[5:10:37] Can you explain in more detail

[5:10:42] what that means?

[5:10:43] Yeah, I can I can you can watch

[5:10:46] your staff or myself.

[5:10:47] Staff or the staff can take it.

[5:10:48] Okay.

[5:10:52] So the project is going to be

[5:10:52] Regrading 60th Street.

[5:10:56] And because of the new crates

[5:10:57] that are going to be on

[5:10:58] the road as well as the roadway

[5:11:02] widening as a fix But as MR.

[5:11:02] Boyd explained, the road is

[5:11:05] going to be widened by

[5:11:05] approximately 18ft and there's

[5:11:06] going to be additional Parkway

[5:11:09] as well as dg Granite and a

[5:11:10] trail easement.

[5:11:11] So when we look at project

[5:11:15] exits such as the Street Out

[5:11:15] and 16th Street we do a site

[5:11:19] distance analysis and that's to

[5:11:19] make sure there's adequate site

[5:11:20] distance both for vehicles

[5:11:21] turning left out of the project

[5:11:24] exit as well as turning right.

[5:11:25] Thank you for that.

[5:11:29] I will now move on to the fire

[5:11:29] marshal's fire marshal

[5:11:33] available.

[5:11:34] >> We do have a staff member

[5:11:35] from the fire department

[5:11:36] available to speak online.

[5:11:38] Okay.

[5:11:38] >> Very good.

[5:11:39] Good afternoon, everybody.

[5:11:43] My name is Tyler Larson,

[5:11:44] supervising deputy fire marshal

[5:11:44] for San Diego Fire Rescue.

[5:11:45] I oversee our new construction

[5:11:48] section and community risk

[5:11:48] reduction.

[5:11:53] So first what specific

[5:11:53] questions do you have as far as

[5:11:55] the emergency access?

[5:11:56] >> Yes.

[5:11:59] Thank you.

[5:12:04] >> So essentially we have for

[5:12:05] this proposed project we have

[5:12:09] the inclusion of a separate

[5:12:10] entrance to the west of

[5:12:10] the proposed development at Ode

[5:12:11] Memory Lane.

[5:12:14] Can you explain how you made

[5:12:15] your determination?

[5:12:18] Because it's my understanding

[5:12:23] that this is in a a very high

[5:12:24] fire hazard severity zone that

[5:12:28] requires two points of I'm

[5:12:32] going to say ingress and egress

[5:12:32] .

[5:12:33] Can you explain how you

[5:12:37] developed or mitigated this

[5:12:38] safety concern?

[5:12:38] >> Yes.

[5:12:42] So this project was proposed

[5:12:43] with two means of ingress and

[5:12:43] egress as shown.

[5:12:48] So per the California Fire Code

[5:12:49] and our local amendments, if if

[5:12:52] a project is located in

[5:12:52] the very high fire severity

[5:12:53] zone and they're proposing more

[5:12:57] than 30 single family dwellings

[5:12:58] to means of access and egress

[5:13:01] for evacuation are required and

[5:13:02] the separation distance is

[5:13:06] greater than half the diagonal

[5:13:07] length of the of property which

[5:13:12] this meets And so it does meet

[5:13:13] current current fire code for

[5:13:16] project see very high fire

[5:13:17] station.

[5:13:17] >> Thank you for that.

[5:13:21] And I guess in regards to

[5:13:21] the second point of ingress and

[5:13:26] egress, how will that be

[5:13:26] managed?

[5:13:27] I heard that the gate will be

[5:13:31] locked so we require four

[5:13:31] gates.

[5:13:35] >> Obviously we need 24 seven

[5:13:36] access to two developments that

[5:13:36] are gated For us

[5:13:41] the requirements are a Knox key

[5:13:41] switch which the Knox Keys

[5:13:42] carried on every fire engine

[5:13:45] truck and battalion chief

[5:13:45] apparatus.

[5:13:50] So coming into the property

[5:13:51] fire department will have

[5:13:51] access.

[5:13:54] However, the hoa or whoever

[5:13:55] buys this this property as far

[5:13:56] as however they want to

[5:14:00] maintain their their public or

[5:14:01] their I'm sorry the resident

[5:14:04] access whether it's a key FOBs

[5:14:05] keypad or anything like that we

[5:14:09] will still have a separate 24/7

[5:14:10] access for the fire department

[5:14:15] as far as egress in case of

[5:14:18] evacuation.

[5:14:19] This usually involves an

[5:14:20] underground sensor that

[5:14:24] automatically opens the gates.

[5:14:25] There's other technology out

[5:14:30] there but typically we see, you

[5:14:30] know, a sensor that that reads

[5:14:31] the vehicle and its weight and

[5:14:34] everything like that.

[5:14:35] So that will automatically open

[5:14:35] up the gates for for residents

[5:14:38] coming out.

[5:14:39] >> So the hoa will have access

[5:14:43] to how the gate will be

[5:14:44] operated for the residents in

[5:14:45] the development.

[5:14:49] Is that my is that my

[5:14:50] understanding that Yes.

[5:14:54] And once then we we will review

[5:14:55] in the ministerial the building

[5:14:55] construction permit phase as

[5:15:00] well so we can work out details

[5:15:00] as far as exactly where

[5:15:01] the sensor is going to be And

[5:15:04] in those that those those fine

[5:15:05] details But typically as they

[5:15:06] will decide on that but we were

[5:15:09] we will required because it's

[5:15:10] in a very high fire severity

[5:15:10] zone.

[5:15:14] Okay ease of fitness.

[5:15:14] >> Thank you for that.

[5:15:15] The other issue that has been

[5:15:19] brought up as we are as we are

[5:15:19] adding a 123 additional homes

[5:15:23] in the area, the concern about

[5:15:28] a fire station, what fire

[5:15:33] station will serve this area?

[5:15:34] This is really right on

[5:15:34] the border of engineer.

[5:15:39] I'm sorry Station 12 and

[5:15:43] Station 2626 is is closer and

[5:15:44] will probably respond first but

[5:15:47] it's right on right on

[5:15:48] the border of both districts

[5:15:49] And there's also to the south

[5:15:53] east of this project there is a

[5:15:53] station 51.

[5:15:58] So like with any any new

[5:15:59] development will absorb it as

[5:16:00] far as meeting the response

[5:16:03] times and there's also two

[5:16:07] planned fire stations one on

[5:16:08] Fairmont and one in Encanto I

[5:16:13] believe once it's 65th and

[5:16:14] Broadway that that's less than

[5:16:14] a mile away from

[5:16:18] the development.

[5:16:19] >> That's a that's a future

[5:16:19] fire station company as well.

[5:16:22] Question for you.

[5:16:23] I know at one point in time

[5:16:24] there were response time

[5:16:28] concerns and there I believe it

[5:16:29] was Squad 55, a two man squad

[5:16:34] that was put in place.

[5:16:35] I want to say that they were

[5:16:39] housed at the By Contractors

[5:16:40] Association.

[5:16:40] I want to say they moved from

[5:16:43] there, went to Station 51 but

[5:16:44] then I believe they were

[5:16:48] relocated to downtown.

[5:16:49] Is there any concern in regards

[5:16:54] to response times and the need

[5:16:54] to bring that I guess you

[5:16:55] termed it as a rapid response

[5:16:55] type unit.

[5:16:59] Has that been discussed or

[5:17:00] determined or would that be

[5:17:04] looked at as we continue to go

[5:17:05] through the permitting process

[5:17:06] that's ongoing analysis as far

[5:17:10] as response times in general?

[5:17:11] Typically what I've seen with

[5:17:16] those squads is they'll respond

[5:17:17] with an engine or a trucking

[5:17:21] incident So I just want to

[5:17:22] speak on a high level.

[5:17:27] You know, we will absorb, you

[5:17:28] know, project as proposed and

[5:17:36] still be response times

[5:17:36] obviously that you know, at a

[5:17:37] high level we're continually

[5:17:38] continuously looking at

[5:17:41] response times with increased

[5:17:42] populations in general But

[5:17:46] the simple answer is we'll be

[5:17:47] able to meet response times

[5:17:48] with the current resources we

[5:17:48] have.

[5:17:48] >> All right.

[5:17:53] Thank you for that Before you

[5:17:54] continue.

[5:17:54] >> COUNCILMAN Fox is going to

[5:17:58] need a little bit more time or

[5:17:59] some member of roster Excuse me

[5:17:59] Councilmember Random.

[5:18:04] Thank you for seeding time And

[5:18:09] I guess I'll move on down to

[5:18:14] the developer and I guess MR.

[5:18:20] Boyd if you can address your

[5:18:21] plan to mitigate any additional

[5:18:26] water runoff you've touched

[5:18:26] upon it during your

[5:18:27] presentation but can you just

[5:18:28] elaborate quickly on how you

[5:18:31] plan to do that?

[5:18:32] Yes, sir.

[5:18:32] During the course of

[5:18:33] construction will be installing

[5:18:37] the storm drain improvements on

[5:18:38] site that include three bio

[5:18:39] filter basins that collect

[5:18:44] water clean water to dissipate

[5:18:44] water.

[5:18:45] In addition to that, we're

[5:18:45] going to have your urban

[5:18:46] gathering permits which collect

[5:18:50] rainwater anticipate two city

[5:18:50] designated systems.

[5:18:51] From that standpoint, the extra

[5:18:56] measures that we're doing is

[5:18:56] are these viable dishes that

[5:18:57] are going to be placed on

[5:18:58] the south and the northern

[5:18:58] perimeters.

[5:19:02] So in the event we have

[5:19:02] landscaping water runoff we're

[5:19:03] going to be ditch and not

[5:19:07] impact the properties below.

[5:19:08] Thank you so much for that.

[5:19:08] Stay there.

[5:19:13] Also just wanted to touch upon

[5:19:19] the community engagement.

[5:19:19] You had a slide.

[5:19:24] You had a slide as part of your

[5:19:25] presentation and you mentioned

[5:19:30] that you did quite a bit of

[5:19:30] outreach.

[5:19:31] Can you elaborate a little more

[5:19:32] on just what that entailed?

[5:19:37] I myself have observed you at

[5:19:43] The Current Memorials park

[5:19:43] where certain events would be

[5:19:44] taking place.

[5:19:48] You were out there with your

[5:19:48] team.

[5:19:49] You would have a table.

[5:19:49] You would have your conceptual

[5:19:50] drawings.

[5:19:54] I know you were meeting with

[5:19:55] folks in their garages and

[5:19:55] having several conversations.

[5:20:00] I want to say over probably

[5:20:01] about four but about four years

[5:20:02] or so.

[5:20:02] Is that accurate?

[5:20:03] That's very accurate.

[5:20:03] Yes, sir.

[5:20:07] And can you and I guess just

[5:20:11] what I would like to do I have

[5:20:12] some correspondence here that I

[5:20:13] would like to also add to

[5:20:18] the record is title

[5:20:19] correspondence number nine.

[5:20:19] And it looks like it's an email

[5:20:23] that you sent to me that was

[5:20:28] included as part of a 20 4-6639

[5:20:28] that was actually submitted by

[5:20:33] MR. Rob Campbell.

[5:20:34] And I want to say that it looks

[5:20:35] like it says and I'll read it

[5:20:36] into the record Sunday we are

[5:20:40] meeting with a number of

[5:20:40] homeowners to discuss certain

[5:20:41] concerns namely drainage.

[5:20:46] We are confident we can address

[5:20:47] Kenneth Key who was the very

[5:20:52] vocal resident who has

[5:20:52] coordinated this effort.

[5:20:53] We have developed a very

[5:20:53] positive relationship.

[5:20:57] He seems to be better

[5:20:57] understanding of the project

[5:20:58] and need for housing.

[5:21:03] Next we two are meeting with

[5:21:04] DR. Sams and her folks to tour

[5:21:04] certain areas of

[5:21:05] the neighborhood to get our

[5:21:08] marketing interest with

[5:21:09] potential rehabilitation.

[5:21:09] She desires to prepare a

[5:21:15] positive written statement

[5:21:15] listing all the reasons to

[5:21:16] support the project.

[5:21:16] She also is asking for Horton

[5:21:20] to be a financial supporter of

[5:21:21] local charity events.

[5:21:22] Lastly, as previously noted we

[5:21:26] are open to provide a formal

[5:21:27] council update at any time.

[5:21:31] >> So can you just just quickly

[5:21:32] just how much outreach did you

[5:21:32] do?

[5:21:38] >> a whole lot over a period of

[5:21:38] 12 months.

[5:21:39] Over a period of four years.

[5:21:43] Our outreach never stopped.

[5:21:44] No matter what process stage we

[5:21:45] were at, we went into living

[5:21:45] rooms.

[5:21:50] We met with folks, we attended

[5:21:50] community affairs.

[5:21:51] We attended community events by

[5:21:56] nature and we felt it was

[5:21:56] important to meet with

[5:21:57] the opposition.

[5:21:57] We had coffees.

[5:21:58] We sat down with a few of

[5:22:02] the folks here that spoke

[5:22:02] against the project that we

[5:22:03] came to the coffee shops.

[5:22:04] We answer their questions

[5:22:08] the best of our ability.

[5:22:08] We never stopped.

[5:22:09] So we continued with that

[5:22:13] community outreach well past

[5:22:14] planning Commission approval

[5:22:15] and we felt that was what

[5:22:15] the community deserved and

[5:22:16] that's what we provided.

[5:22:20] And so we feel very good about

[5:22:20] that.

[5:22:20] Councilmember Foster.

[5:22:21] But I want to be explicitly

[5:22:25] clear there was not a phone

[5:22:26] call or an opportunity that I

[5:22:26] personally did not MISS.

[5:22:31] I have come down to San Diego

[5:22:31] from Orange County.

[5:22:37] Time after time after time on

[5:22:37] moment's notice we took

[5:22:38] advantage of every opportunity

[5:22:43] we could get Our project facts

[5:22:44] out on the street.

[5:22:48] And yes, the rhetoric of

[5:22:49] the note seven consumed all of

[5:22:49] us.

[5:22:50] And what I tried to do in my

[5:22:55] community outreach was let us

[5:22:55] divorce ourselves from reality.

[5:22:56] But note seven issue which is

[5:22:56] long gone.

[5:23:00] And let's focus on the merits

[5:23:01] of this project.

[5:23:01] I will be honest with you.

[5:23:02] That was a challenge.

[5:23:07] And frankly speaking we never

[5:23:07] gave up on that.

[5:23:08] >> Thank you for that.

[5:23:12] With that I'll go back to city

[5:23:12] staff.

[5:23:13] Thank you.

[5:23:19] Just want to touch base on

[5:23:19] the diff.

[5:23:20] I think we have the director of

[5:23:20] planning here.

[5:23:24] Can you elaborate on

[5:23:25] the potential fees that will

[5:23:26] come in from this project how

[5:23:31] those can be utilized?

[5:23:31] >> Yes.

[5:23:36] So citywide fees do go into

[5:23:36] citywide funds.

[5:23:37] They do go through this vip

[5:23:38] prioritization process that is

[5:23:42] spelled out in Council policy

[5:23:43] 814 for prioritization.

[5:23:47] But Councilmember certainly

[5:23:48] upon your request we're happy

[5:23:49] to work with your office and to

[5:23:49] see how we can prioritize

[5:23:54] funding for projects within

[5:23:54] your community.

[5:23:55] We don't tie specific funds to

[5:24:00] specific projects in this

[5:24:01] particular example.

[5:24:02] I would imagine that there

[5:24:06] would be a larger funding pool

[5:24:07] available for investments in

[5:24:08] your community rather than just

[5:24:13] simply identifying the specific

[5:24:13] funds to be paid from this

[5:24:14] particular project.

[5:24:18] I appreciate that and if this

[5:24:19] project does pass today then we

[5:24:20] will definitely have to have

[5:24:25] those conversations to make

[5:24:26] sure that the needs of

[5:24:26] the community are met.

[5:24:32] We can all agree that there is

[5:24:32] work to do infrastructure

[5:24:33] updates and that type of of

[5:24:38] work that needs to take place.

[5:24:39] >> Absolutely, Councilmember

[5:24:39] And we're happy to work with

[5:24:40] your office.

[5:24:40] I do want to note that in all

[5:24:43] impact fees are paid at

[5:24:44] the time of final inspection so

[5:24:45] there MAY be some lag before

[5:24:49] the revenue hits the city.

[5:24:49] But we're happy to have

[5:24:50] continued conversations to

[5:24:51] identify capital improvement

[5:24:55] projects in your community and

[5:24:56] beginning with the next

[5:24:57] upcoming city budget process.

[5:24:57] Thanks.

[5:24:57] All right.

[5:25:01] Thank you for that.

[5:25:02] I think I'm going to try and

[5:25:02] wrap up here.

[5:25:06] Looks like I have a minute and

[5:25:06] 35 seconds left.

[5:25:07] There there are several more

[5:25:13] questions that I did come with

[5:25:13] but I think one is my boss If

[5:25:19] you need additional time, I'm

[5:25:19] happy to do so because I do

[5:25:23] think I do think what I would

[5:25:30] like to do is I guess that

[5:25:31] okay.

[5:25:31] >> Do we have to do this again?

[5:25:35] This is routine business for

[5:25:36] the city council If you haven't

[5:25:37] been here each allotted eight

[5:25:42] minutes and if a council fellow

[5:25:43] council member needs more time

[5:25:43] we give them more time.

[5:25:47] COUNCILMAN Weprin gave up five

[5:25:48] minutes so he doesn't get those

[5:25:48] five minutes back.

[5:25:49] Gotham Arena Council member Von

[5:25:53] Wilpert gave up that time so

[5:25:53] that the lead councilmember for

[5:25:54] this district can have his

[5:25:58] opportunity.

[5:25:59] This is routine business.

[5:26:00] We do it all the time so please

[5:26:04] bear with us.

[5:26:05] Thank you.

[5:26:05] Council PRESIDENT I guess I'll

[5:26:10] try to end and wrap this up But

[5:26:16] I guess also as I look at

[5:26:17] the appeal it looks like

[5:26:22] the appellate I'm actually

[5:26:22] attached the complaint

[5:26:29] regarding a similar project,

[5:26:29] the Clover Project to

[5:26:30] the appeal.

[5:26:35] Is that correct?

[5:26:35] >> Yes.

[5:26:36] Yes.

[5:26:36] That is part of the appeal

[5:26:42] package And I would like to say

[5:26:42] or if I understand what was

[5:26:43] provided a lot of that had to

[5:26:48] do with footnote seven correct?

[5:26:54] That is accurate And then I

[5:26:54] received a recent update from

[5:26:55] the city Attorney's office.

[5:26:56] It's my understanding that

[5:26:59] the joint Valley Planning Group

[5:27:00] has determined that they wanted

[5:27:05] to dismiss and settle

[5:27:05] the litigation.

[5:27:06] Is that correct?

[5:27:06] Yes, that is correct.

[5:27:11] And has that agreement been

[5:27:11] finalized?

[5:27:12] My understanding is that it's

[5:27:13] all been signed.

[5:27:13] There MAY be some lingering

[5:27:18] signatures but it has been

[5:27:23] settled So essentially that

[5:27:31] complaint is basically done or

[5:27:32] null and void I guess I'll say

[5:27:33] or I don't know what the I

[5:27:33] don't know to turn

[5:27:36] the settlement side for

[5:27:37] the settlement and

[5:27:38] the plaintiff agrees to dismiss

[5:27:38] the lawsuit.

[5:27:43] The city will not pay any funds

[5:27:49] and agrees to waive seeking any

[5:27:49] attorney's fees and costs

[5:27:50] associated with that.

[5:27:50] >> Okay.

[5:27:55] Thank you for that.

[5:27:56] I guess my final question would

[5:27:56] be because they attach that to

[5:28:01] the appeal, does that impact

[5:28:01] the appeal at all?

[5:28:02] No, it doesn't impact

[5:28:05] the appeal.

[5:28:06] I think that my understanding

[5:28:07] is that it was included to

[5:28:12] support their arguments.

[5:28:12] >> Okay.

[5:28:13] Thank you for that.

[5:28:18] I guess in I don't know if this

[5:28:19] is proper but if we can make

[5:28:24] the settlement agreement part

[5:28:25] of the legislative record as

[5:28:26] backup for this item.

[5:28:31] >> Yes, it's the public record.

[5:28:31] >> Okay.

[5:28:34] We'll note that as

[5:28:35] correspondence number ten.

[5:28:35] >> Thank you.

[5:28:40] I'll conclude I'll conclude

[5:28:41] here.

[5:28:41] But based on the administrative

[5:28:47] record and the information

[5:28:48] provided today, the appellant

[5:28:53] has not met the required

[5:28:54] standards for sb 330 for this

[5:28:54] Council to grant the appeal

[5:28:59] before us today.

[5:29:00] The appellant did not provide

[5:29:01] the proper evidence indicating

[5:29:01] the project would have any

[5:29:06] specific adverse impact on

[5:29:07] public health or safety and

[5:29:07] that there was no other

[5:29:08] feasible method to

[5:29:12] satisfactorily mitigate or

[5:29:12] avoid the alleged adverse

[5:29:13] impacts.

[5:29:18] So essentially the impacts

[5:29:19] identified all have been

[5:29:24] appropriately appropriately

[5:29:24] mitigated.

[5:29:24] Correct?

[5:29:25] That is correct, sir.

[5:29:30] All right.

[5:29:31] >> Thank you for that.

[5:29:32] So with that I will move that

[5:29:37] recommendation to affirm

[5:29:37] the Planning Commission's

[5:29:38] approval of vesting tentative

[5:29:43] map the site development

[5:29:43] permit, the neighborhood

[5:29:44] development permit and

[5:29:47] neighborhood use permit and

[5:29:54] deny the appeal.

[5:29:54] Okay.

[5:29:55] Thanks, Councilmember Foster.

[5:29:56] So we have a motion to move

[5:29:56] the staff recommendation.

[5:29:59] So I'm going to jump in.

[5:30:00] I want to thank everybody that

[5:30:05] spoke today either here at

[5:30:05] Chambers or remotely.

[5:30:06] Thank you for working with

[5:30:07] the city clerk on the organized

[5:30:11] presentations.

[5:30:12] Now that MR. Stop has raised

[5:30:12] the bar for me I have not

[5:30:17] spoken to the developer.

[5:30:17] I did not speak to

[5:30:18] the appellant.

[5:30:23] I did not speak to staff either

[5:30:24] .

[5:30:25] I have reviewed the material

[5:30:25] attached to the docket as well

[5:30:26] as the public comments.

[5:30:29] But if I listen to

[5:30:29] the presentations and comments

[5:30:30] by the public and for those of

[5:30:31] you who know me and I know some

[5:30:34] out there that know me you know

[5:30:35] that I take a pretty deep dive

[5:30:35] when these land use issues come

[5:30:40] in front of us And what I see

[5:30:41] is a project that meets legal

[5:30:42] requirements but raises serious

[5:30:45] questions of city policy

[5:30:46] the questions of park space,

[5:30:47] environmental justice,

[5:30:47] concentration of poverty

[5:30:52] inequity, equitable investment

[5:30:52] in infrastructure, animal

[5:30:53] health community are very valid

[5:30:53] concerns.

[5:30:58] I have a senior council member

[5:30:59] on the dais fighting for these

[5:31:00] issues over and over again and

[5:31:00] I've been so impressed by his

[5:31:04] good fight that oftentimes our

[5:31:04] two council member from

[5:31:05] District one I often find

[5:31:08] myself fighting for District

[5:31:09] four on issues of equity.

[5:31:09] Further, as a former community

[5:31:10] planning group chair, I

[5:31:15] understand that our community

[5:31:16] plans are guiding documents,

[5:31:16] policy documents if you will

[5:31:20] And as residents we want to

[5:31:21] believe they create an

[5:31:21] agreement between the city and

[5:31:22] the community on what shape our

[5:31:27] community's future should take.

[5:31:27] But as I learned when I was

[5:31:28] the community plan chair that

[5:31:32] when I fought and lost and when

[5:31:33] I fought again and lost and

[5:31:34] when I fought again and lost on

[5:31:38] behalf of my community,

[5:31:39] the community plan is only

[5:31:39] policy and guidelines Our

[5:31:43] communities need and therefore

[5:31:44] nothing should be accepted as

[5:31:50] anything driving other than

[5:31:50] what you're willing to step up

[5:31:51] and fight for as you are today.

[5:31:55] Our communities need parks and

[5:31:56] we need advocates to fight for

[5:31:56] them.

[5:31:57] However, on the subject of

[5:32:02] the project we must apply

[5:32:02] the law.

[5:32:03] We must make findings

[5:32:03] the comments about the housing

[5:32:08] accountability Act which I

[5:32:09] appreciate and respect at a

[5:32:10] much higher threshold and we've

[5:32:14] seen that take place not only

[5:32:14] in our city but in cities

[5:32:15] across the county.

[5:32:16] This project has been seen

[5:32:16] right from the day

[5:32:20] the application was deemed

[5:32:21] complete and at that time

[5:32:21] footnote seven was in effect

[5:32:26] and we have since repealed that

[5:32:27] unfortunate addition to our

[5:32:27] municipal code.

[5:32:31] I MAY have policy concerns with

[5:32:32] 20,000 square foot lot so my

[5:32:33] colleagues have spoken out in

[5:32:33] the past about that history of

[5:32:37] large lots But I agree that a

[5:32:38] footnote is not the way it is

[5:32:38] on land.

[5:32:42] Our city attorney is thoroughly

[5:32:43] analyzed this issue in a public

[5:32:44] memo that has been available

[5:32:48] since JANUARY 2025 and which is

[5:32:48] included in the backup material

[5:32:49] based on that memo and based on

[5:32:54] existing case law regarding

[5:32:54] vested rights, I cannot set

[5:32:55] aside footnote seven for this

[5:32:59] project as many of you would

[5:33:00] think on the merits of

[5:33:01] the project itself as laid out

[5:33:05] compelling reasons for how this

[5:33:06] project complies with

[5:33:07] the general plan community plan

[5:33:07] and with the zoning regulations

[5:33:11] as they existed at the time of

[5:33:12] the application was deemed

[5:33:12] complete and I have not seen

[5:33:13] any compelling evidence that

[5:33:17] raises to that legal standard

[5:33:18] in the record that convinces me

[5:33:19] otherwise.

[5:33:23] The appellant's original appeal

[5:33:24] documents the claims,

[5:33:25] the waivers conflict with our

[5:33:25] state policies but I do not see

[5:33:30] sufficient evidence in

[5:33:31] the record to Lively's waivers

[5:33:31] as they center on

[5:33:32] the previously debated issues

[5:33:34] of Footnote seven and

[5:33:34] consistency with the general

[5:33:35] plan and community plan.

[5:33:39] So I have two quick questions

[5:33:40] that I want to make sure that I

[5:33:41] understand on this project and

[5:33:45] MR. Boyd or staff whoever wants

[5:33:45] to answer that let me give you

[5:33:46] the easy one.

[5:33:51] The secondary access does have

[5:33:51] gates as was clearly described

[5:33:52] by the fire marshal but

[5:33:57] pedestrian access is allowed

[5:33:57] That is correct or

[5:33:58] the secondary.

[5:33:58] That is correct.

[5:34:01] And then the other one we've

[5:34:02] talked a lot about it but I

[5:34:05] want some confirmation there

[5:34:06] are 13 deed restricted lots to

[5:34:06] be located.

[5:34:11] Where are they going to be

[5:34:12] located in the 423 unit project

[5:34:15] per your housing commission

[5:34:16] requirements Those 13 units

[5:34:17] must be equally distributed

[5:34:17] throughout the entire project.

[5:34:23] They will not be concentrated

[5:34:24] in certain places.

[5:34:24] They will not.

[5:34:24] Okay.

[5:34:25] Thank you for what I suspect

[5:34:25] of.

[5:34:27] I thank you for confirming

[5:34:28] that.

[5:34:28] So with that based on my

[5:34:29] independent analysis I believe

[5:34:30] the findings of the project are

[5:34:33] supported and I will second

[5:34:34] the motion for the staff

[5:34:34] recommendation.

[5:34:40] So with that we will go to

[5:34:40] Council Member Campo Thank you

[5:34:41] Council PRESIDENT Thank you to

[5:34:42] the members of the public for

[5:34:45] their participation today and

[5:34:46] for our city staff as well and

[5:34:47] the long effort that this took.

[5:34:47] I'll start with some brief

[5:34:51] questions.

[5:34:52] One of the first ones that

[5:34:53] seems pretty straightforward

[5:34:58] about the notice it had to be

[5:34:58] notice was JUNE 22nd, correct?

[5:34:59] That is correct.

[5:34:59] Okay.

[5:35:03] And were posters with or

[5:35:04] posters or PDFs on Internet

[5:35:08] sites or anything like that

[5:35:09] posted on JUNE 22nd Seeing this

[5:35:15] index of where it was posted at

[5:35:15] the site and all that seems to

[5:35:16] suggest it was later than that

[5:35:20] But I'm wondering what evidence

[5:35:20] you have.

[5:35:21] The project was properly

[5:35:21] noticed.

[5:35:22] Notices were mailed out as

[5:35:25] required.

[5:35:26] It was also posted on the City

[5:35:27] Council's website and then

[5:35:32] distributed to through the San

[5:35:33] Diego daily transcript.

[5:35:33] At the same time the applicant

[5:35:38] was also sent their notice

[5:35:41] which I confirm received on

[5:35:42] Friday JUNE 26th and then they

[5:35:43] followed up by posting

[5:35:47] the notice on the project site

[5:35:48] on JUNE 29th when they

[5:35:48] submitted their evidence of

[5:35:53] posting I noticed that

[5:35:54] the posting had the wrong

[5:35:54] header on it and immediately

[5:35:55] notified the applicant to

[5:35:59] correct the header and make it

[5:36:00] so that it was visible that it

[5:36:05] was a notice of public hearing

[5:36:06] for city council.

[5:36:07] i see so I can get my city

[5:36:10] clerk wants to read it.

[5:36:10] Sorry I did just want to

[5:36:11] confirm that my office did do

[5:36:12] the notice saying we have

[5:36:15] the mail certificate as well as

[5:36:16] the mail stands for everything

[5:36:16] that we know as well as I've

[5:36:17] seen on public postings such as

[5:36:20] Reddit that people did receive

[5:36:21] these postings and we also

[5:36:21] received that as well as

[5:36:22] the daily transcript.

[5:36:26] My office did do that as well.

[5:36:27] >> Thank you Council PRESIDENT.

[5:36:28] I know my time is running at

[5:36:31] the at the moment I understood

[5:36:32] So the city did its part.

[5:36:33] >> It sounds like a developer

[5:36:36] had to put their notice up on

[5:36:37] the fence as well.

[5:36:37] That is correct.

[5:36:38] Okay.

[5:36:39] If they are faulty but we're in

[5:36:42] compliance as a city, does that

[5:36:43] impact them process at all?

[5:36:44] >> It does not.

[5:36:46] The municipal code has a

[5:36:47] section that speaks to errant

[5:36:48] posting stating that

[5:36:52] the posting required by the by

[5:36:52] the section is intended only to

[5:36:53] supplement other noticing

[5:36:54] requirements of this division.

[5:36:58] Understood.

[5:36:59] So their problem is not a

[5:37:03] legally valid problem is what

[5:37:04] you're telling me that is

[5:37:04] correct.

[5:37:05] Okay.

[5:37:05] That that municipal code I take

[5:37:09] it is there's not a broader

[5:37:10] concern about that or it's just

[5:37:10] municipal code.

[5:37:14] Is that an adoption of state

[5:37:15] code or is that just our city

[5:37:16] law That is our city

[5:37:19] regulations.

[5:37:19] Okay, Very good.

[5:37:20] All right.

[5:37:20] Question for the city

[5:37:24] attorney's office.

[5:37:25] Footnote seven obviously

[5:37:25] applies as the law When this

[5:37:29] development was completed its

[5:37:32] application So the date it was

[5:37:38] vested on just because it's

[5:37:38] vested it's a complete

[5:37:41] application that doesn't mean

[5:37:42] that we can't deny the project

[5:37:47] right?

[5:37:48] >> Councilmember You can deny

[5:37:51] the project however it needs to

[5:37:52] You need to make those specific

[5:37:53] written findings in order

[5:38:00] Tonight I understood Okay.

[5:38:00] One of the aspects that came up

[5:38:01] was was some of the fire issues

[5:38:02] I know we had the response from

[5:38:07] the fire marshal and it was on

[5:38:08] one of the slides It said

[5:38:12] the appeal pointed out a lack

[5:38:13] of an analysis and then

[5:38:14] the slide said it did not

[5:38:14] trigger an analysis.

[5:38:18] Am I reading that correct?

[5:38:18] That is correct.

[5:38:19] That project did not trigger

[5:38:20] further analysis.

[5:38:22] Okay.

[5:38:23] Why didn't it trigger further

[5:38:23] analysis?

[5:38:24] Because the project is

[5:38:27] consistent with the community

[5:38:28] plan density that was

[5:38:32] prescribed from the 2015

[5:38:32] Community Plan update

[5:38:33] Furthermore, it was previously

[5:38:33] also identified as residential

[5:38:37] development in the prior 1987

[5:38:37] Community Plan.

[5:38:40] Okay then the 2015 Community

[5:38:41] Plan update not have

[5:38:44] the density is rs one seven it

[5:38:45] was rs12 at the time it had

[5:38:49] the prescribed density for

[5:38:50] affordable units per acre.

[5:38:50] The rs17 is a zoning

[5:38:55] designation not identified in

[5:38:55] the community plan.

[5:38:56] Okay so slightly different

[5:38:59] thing.

[5:39:00] Explain that a little further.

[5:39:04] So you're saying there's a

[5:39:05] sense you said that's very

[5:39:05] legally important.

[5:39:09] You said the development is in

[5:39:09] conformance with the 2015 plan

[5:39:13] community plan.

[5:39:14] >> That is correct.

[5:39:14] Okay.

[5:39:15] So the fact that they're taking

[5:39:19] advantage of deeper density as

[5:39:22] allowed under footnote seven is

[5:39:23] immaterial to a determination

[5:39:27] if it needs or triggers a

[5:39:27] public safety analysis.

[5:39:31] A report from the fire marshal

[5:39:32] That is correct because it has

[5:39:32] consistency with the prescribed

[5:39:37] community plan density.

[5:39:37] Okay.

[5:39:38] So the community plan density

[5:39:41] is what you set forth to all

[5:39:42] for polling units per acre.

[5:39:45] Footnote seven said the lot

[5:39:49] sizes are 5000 at rs one to as

[5:39:49] opposed to 20,000.

[5:39:50] That doesn't seem to line up

[5:39:50] very well.

[5:39:54] Can you explain it with with

[5:39:57] the calculation so 43,000ft

[5:40:01] per acre and 5000 foot lots

[5:40:02] that would make them match up

[5:40:06] so they would match up with

[5:40:07] each other at four dwelling

[5:40:07] units per acre?

[5:40:07] Okay.

[5:40:12] My understanding is that so

[5:40:13] this parcel of land is it not

[5:40:15] rs one two or it is it is

[5:40:15] currently zoned rs one two

[5:40:16] Correct.

[5:40:17] Okay.

[5:40:22] Understood.

[5:40:23] Let me ask you a question about

[5:40:26] the some of the variances that

[5:40:27] the applicant has asked for.

[5:40:28] It looks like the materials

[5:40:31] from Planning Commission show

[5:40:32] that there's 123 residential

[5:40:35] lots and 107 of them exceed

[5:40:35] the city's maximum driveway

[5:40:39] curb opening standard.

[5:40:40] >> Can you explain what that

[5:40:44] means That was proposed so that

[5:40:45] they would be able to have two

[5:40:48] vehicles parked in the driveway

[5:40:49] and our regulations would limit

[5:40:53] the driveway with opening to

[5:40:53] 20ft where they're requesting

[5:40:54] 22ft.

[5:40:58] >> Okay.

[5:40:59] Does that have any impact on

[5:40:59] fire safety?

[5:41:00] Does that have any impact on

[5:41:02] public safety?

[5:41:03] That would require a deeper

[5:41:03] analysis.

[5:41:07] It sounds to me like we're

[5:41:08] deviating from something that

[5:41:08] is required citywide and

[5:41:12] allowing a special adjustment

[5:41:12] here.

[5:41:13] >> It would actually

[5:41:13] the purpose of it would be

[5:41:17] actually to remove vehicles

[5:41:17] from city streets, right?

[5:41:22] So that would make more

[5:41:22] availability onto the streets

[5:41:23] and bring those vehicles onto

[5:41:24] private property.

[5:41:24] Okay.

[5:41:29] Understood.

[5:41:32] Let's really let's talk about

[5:41:33] the 2015 programatic year for a

[5:41:37] second.

[5:41:42] >> Is that the basis for which

[5:41:42] there wasn't the is that part

[5:41:43] of the answer to why there

[5:41:47] wasn't the additional public

[5:41:47] safety analysis that that

[5:41:51] that's the programmatic air was

[5:41:52] part of the community plan

[5:41:56] update that you talked about in

[5:41:56] 2015, correct?

[5:41:57] That is correct.

[5:41:57] And we do have environmental

[5:42:01] staff here that reviewed

[5:42:02] the project that would be

[5:42:02] answer that will be able to

[5:42:05] answer more detailed questions

[5:42:06] .

[5:42:10] Okay.

[5:42:11] Hi, this is Donna marshall with

[5:42:11] Environmental Analysis Section

[5:42:15] of dsd.

[5:42:16] >> Can you repeat your

[5:42:16] question?

[5:42:16] I'm sorry.

[5:42:20] Certainly So one of the reasons

[5:42:20] we're not seeing a deeper

[5:42:24] public safety analysis or

[5:42:25] report that wasn't triggered is

[5:42:25] because of the saying

[5:42:26] the application is in

[5:42:29] conformance with the 2015

[5:42:30] community plan And there's a

[5:42:34] programmatic air that went with

[5:42:35] that community plan, correct?

[5:42:35] Correct.

[5:42:35] Okay.

[5:42:39] So we're using that air at that

[5:42:43] time to set the environmental

[5:42:44] standards for this area.

[5:42:44] >> Correct.

[5:42:48] And this project was reviewed

[5:42:53] under that program air Correct

[5:42:53] .

[5:42:54] >> Okay.

[5:42:54] If the density that was creat

[5:42:58] that is being allowed under

[5:42:59] footnote seven had been

[5:43:02] included or actually been

[5:43:03] incorporated into the plan in

[5:43:03] 2015, would that programmatic

[5:43:07] air have had anything

[5:43:08] potentially different about it

[5:43:09] given how many more homes would

[5:43:14] have been allowed in the area?

[5:43:15] So this project is consistent

[5:43:19] with the land use designation

[5:43:20] for this site which is 0 to 4

[5:43:23] units per acre And so this

[5:43:24] project density was considered

[5:43:29] within that air and so there is

[5:43:29] no change.

[5:43:29] >> Okay.

[5:43:33] So what I'm hearing is that

[5:43:34] what's being proposed whether

[5:43:37] footnote seven was passed or

[5:43:38] not wouldn't be allowed or

[5:43:38] would be allowed.

[5:43:42] So footnote seven is immaterial

[5:43:43] to this in this entire

[5:43:43] discussion right now.

[5:43:45] >> Correct?

[5:44:03] Okay.

[5:44:04] And Councilmember Campo and I

[5:44:08] think probably the question is

[5:44:09] that were alluding to is would

[5:44:09] the project be able to move

[5:44:13] forward regardless of footnote

[5:44:13] seven Right.

[5:44:14] Okay.

[5:44:14] To address that question yes.

[5:44:18] The project is consistent with

[5:44:19] a community plan density

[5:44:22] the prescribed density at 0 to

[5:44:22] 4 dwelling units per acre.

[5:44:23] >> The project would be able to

[5:44:26] move forward but it would have

[5:44:27] to go through a different

[5:44:28] avenue allowed through

[5:44:31] the municipal code.

[5:44:32] >> What avenue would that be?

[5:44:32] So through the provision of

[5:44:36] density bonus the project would

[5:44:37] be able to be able to move

[5:44:37] forward.

[5:44:38] The difference being here is

[5:44:41] that if they moved forward that

[5:44:42] direction they would have to

[5:44:45] request additional incentives

[5:44:46] and waivers.

[5:44:46] >> Okay.

[5:44:50] So I guess there's this seems

[5:44:51] pretty confusing to me that a

[5:44:51] lot of what I understand this

[5:44:55] project to be utilizing is

[5:44:56] footnote seven to get where

[5:44:56] they're going.

[5:44:58] But you're saying they don't

[5:44:59] use footnote seven at all.

[5:45:02] They are using footnote seven

[5:45:03] for this project but there are

[5:45:04] other avenues to get to this

[5:45:07] project without the utilization

[5:45:08] of footnote seven.

[5:45:08] Okay.

[5:45:12] So I do Okay that's important

[5:45:13] because what I had just been

[5:45:17] hearing was that this would be

[5:45:18] allowed under footnote seven

[5:45:19] without footnote seven at all

[5:45:19] And you're saying they do use

[5:45:22] footnote seven So that's

[5:45:22] important.

[5:45:22] Okay.

[5:45:26] If footnote seven were never

[5:45:26] part of it and they use

[5:45:27] the alternative methods

[5:45:30] the bonus density issues would

[5:45:31] that have then through that

[5:45:32] process triggered public safety

[5:45:35] analysis that was not triggered

[5:45:35] in this situation or is that

[5:45:36] still immaterial?

[5:45:39] It's still immaterial because

[5:45:39] it's within the prescribed

[5:45:40] density allowed by

[5:45:40] the community plan and

[5:45:44] reflected in the program air

[5:45:45] for the community plan update

[5:45:49] Why would the applicant want to

[5:45:49] use footnote seven instead of

[5:45:50] the other avenue that you

[5:45:53] mentioned?

[5:45:54] >> I will defer to

[5:45:58] the applicant on that Sorry are

[5:46:03] you following my logic?

[5:46:04] And they used to think well I

[5:46:05] can answer that question.

[5:46:08] Thank you MR. Boyd When we file

[5:46:08] applications any application

[5:46:12] it's implied that we're going

[5:46:13] to follow the law, follow

[5:46:14] the rules, the standards and

[5:46:16] regulations of the city as

[5:46:17] the case here today.

[5:46:18] So when we provided our

[5:46:22] applications it was under then

[5:46:26] the footnote seven which

[5:46:29] allowed minimum lot sizes of

[5:46:30] 5000ft.

[5:46:30] But the overriding iteration

[5:46:34] under the program document is

[5:46:35] you're limited up to a maximum

[5:46:38] of four units per unit.

[5:46:39] So as long as we stayed within

[5:46:44] the approved density we went

[5:46:44] with what was on the zoning

[5:46:45] books we would not have

[5:46:49] considered a density bonus.

[5:46:50] We intended to satisfy our

[5:46:54] needs with what was being

[5:46:55] provided to us through your

[5:46:56] zoning at the time.

[5:47:01] >> Okay so we had two avenues

[5:47:02] to for this applicant to get

[5:47:06] their project through is what

[5:47:06] I'm hearing.

[5:47:07] That is correct but we do not

[5:47:11] give applicants alternatives to

[5:47:12] get to their end product.

[5:47:17] We review the projects as they

[5:47:17] are submitted So if the project

[5:47:20] came in utilizing footnote

[5:47:20] seven that is what staff based

[5:47:21] our review on.

[5:47:21] >> Okay.

[5:47:25] From your perspective what

[5:47:26] going through the other avenue

[5:47:26] have been more difficult

[5:47:27] triggered different types of

[5:47:30] laws the density bonus

[5:47:34] regulation in this particular

[5:47:34] case would not have triggered

[5:47:35] anything additional.

[5:47:39] The key point here is that

[5:47:40] the developer regardless of

[5:47:44] which avenue they went they

[5:47:44] chose not to take a density

[5:47:45] bonus for the project.

[5:47:49] Okay.

[5:47:49] All right.

[5:47:50] We still have a minute 45 I'll

[5:47:50] reserve my time.

[5:47:51] Thank you.

[5:47:54] Council PRESIDENT All right.

[5:47:54] Thank you.

[5:47:55] Council member Kim Peel.

[5:47:56] We'll go next to council member

[5:48:00] Eli Rivera.

[5:48:01] All right.

[5:48:02] Thank you Council PRESIDENT.

[5:48:02] Appreciate all the work from

[5:48:05] staff on this the engagement

[5:48:10] from and with community

[5:48:10] Councilor Foster thank you for

[5:48:11] your and your team's

[5:48:17] considerable work on this.

[5:48:18] I, I just wanted to speak to a

[5:48:18] couple of things that came up

[5:48:21] during the conversation here

[5:48:22] And the first is

[5:48:27] the acknowledgment that there

[5:48:32] are long term consequences for

[5:48:32] the disrespect and

[5:48:36] disinvestment from communities

[5:48:42] and that is valid and real And

[5:48:46] the city of San Diego suffers

[5:48:47] as a result of that in

[5:48:47] neighborhoods throughout this

[5:48:58] city And that is a tragedy that

[5:49:04] will take many, many years to

[5:49:05] even make amends for because it

[5:49:08] can't be undone And it makes

[5:49:09] conversations about the future

[5:49:14] more difficult because how are

[5:49:14] folks to trust that

[5:49:18] the commitments being made will

[5:49:19] actually follow through to

[5:49:19] follow through on if that's

[5:49:25] never been the case in the past

[5:49:26] .

[5:49:27] So I want to acknowledge all of

[5:49:30] that At the same time what we

[5:49:31] what we have in front of us I

[5:49:35] think is is is really important

[5:49:35] for where the city is trying to

[5:49:40] go and where when I hear

[5:49:47] Councilmember Foster speak to

[5:49:48] the way that housing was was

[5:49:51] provided the stability that it

[5:49:57] provided for your family I

[5:49:57] think I think about MS..

[5:49:58] Nash his comments and I don't

[5:50:02] think there is a single time I

[5:50:03] have spoken to MS..

[5:50:04] Nash where she hasn't talked to

[5:50:06] the district for Councilmember

[5:50:07] Foster before I even knew you

[5:50:09] or you knew me I was watching

[5:50:14] you stick up for District four

[5:50:15] and demand better for

[5:50:19] the community And it's it

[5:50:22] happens every single day.

[5:50:29] We're on this dais with an

[5:50:30] unwillingness to to compromise

[5:50:31] because of the way you love

[5:50:35] your community.

[5:50:36] And what I heard you say when I

[5:50:39] heard MS..

[5:50:40] Nash say and I heard others say

[5:50:41] is something that people are

[5:50:44] wrestling with in multiple

[5:50:44] parts of this city And it's

[5:50:45] the realization that without

[5:50:49] more housing the generations to

[5:50:53] come will not have an

[5:50:54] opportunity to stay in this

[5:50:55] city and they'll certainly not

[5:50:57] have an opportunity to stay in

[5:50:58] the neighborhoods that they

[5:51:10] grew up in And I that is that

[5:51:11] is incredibly compelling to me

[5:51:11] because I didn't have

[5:51:15] the opportunity to stay in one

[5:51:16] neighborhood for my entire

[5:51:20] childhood And I see what that

[5:51:21] means to folks who did And and

[5:51:25] it's special And to write off

[5:51:30] my generation and the next

[5:51:30] generation the generation after

[5:51:31] that from having

[5:51:34] the opportunity to go to to to

[5:51:35] raise their own kids in

[5:51:35] the communities where they grew

[5:51:40] up is is an injustice in its

[5:51:44] own in its own form.

[5:51:45] >> I think community character

[5:51:49] comes from people and people

[5:51:49] need homes and they will not

[5:51:50] have homes if more homes are

[5:51:53] not built.

[5:51:54] And to anyone who's questioning

[5:51:57] the affordability of these

[5:51:58] homes, I'm right there with

[5:51:58] you.

[5:52:02] Housing is too expensive.

[5:52:03] >> There is no cheap housing in

[5:52:07] San Diego.

[5:52:21] You can just I'm going to pause

[5:52:35] for a moment, take my time.

[5:52:40] Foster has been absolutely

[5:52:41] uncompromising in the in his

[5:52:45] expectation that what is built

[5:52:45] in his community is a quality

[5:52:50] and is not a replication of

[5:52:50] the past practice of allowing

[5:52:55] anything to be built anywhere

[5:52:56] to the point where we've

[5:52:56] actually disagreed at times

[5:53:00] about the need to create more

[5:53:00] opportunity.

[5:53:04] I see what's presented here and

[5:53:09] what I am very confident of is

[5:53:09] that if those homes are built

[5:53:13] and families move in them it

[5:53:14] will be the realization of a

[5:53:14] dream for those families and

[5:53:19] the opportunity to plant roots

[5:53:19] similar to what Councilmember

[5:53:24] Foster and others who love

[5:53:24] District four and love San

[5:53:28] Diego have been able to plan

[5:53:29] And I think that's a really

[5:53:29] good thing And I will

[5:53:33] acknowledge again that change

[5:53:34] is difficult.

[5:53:34] I will engage again that

[5:53:38] district for southeastern San

[5:53:43] Diego and other parts of

[5:53:43] the city have been done wrong

[5:53:44] by the city and by done wrong

[5:53:47] by others for far too long.

[5:53:48] But that doesn't change

[5:53:48] the merits of what's in front

[5:53:52] of us The legality of what's in

[5:53:52] front of us.

[5:53:53] And so for those reasons I'll

[5:53:53] be supporting the motion.

[5:53:56] Thank you.

[5:53:57] All right.

[5:53:57] Thank you.

[5:53:58] Council member Eli Rivera.

[5:53:59] We'll go next to Council

[5:54:02] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee Thank

[5:54:03] Council PRESIDENT And first off

[5:54:03] I want to thank Councilmember

[5:54:06] Foster for taking the time to

[5:54:07] walk through numerous aspects

[5:54:08] of the project and the proposed

[5:54:11] appeal and hitting on a lot of

[5:54:12] questions I'm sure folks want

[5:54:15] to ask as well that was

[5:54:16] appreciated and I will thank

[5:54:17] you also for taking on

[5:54:21] the repeal of Footnote seven

[5:54:21] and ultimately mapping out for

[5:54:25] us today the timeline of how

[5:54:26] that came about But also again

[5:54:26] speaking frankly about your

[5:54:31] approach when it comes to

[5:54:31] addressing minimum lot sizes

[5:54:35] because I think that's an issue

[5:54:36] that was easily lost in

[5:54:36] the footnote seven discussion

[5:54:40] but still important I think

[5:54:41] that Councilmember Foster's

[5:54:41] push back with this

[5:54:45] administration shown is also

[5:54:46] what sparked the effort to

[5:54:46] reevaluate the two density

[5:54:49] bonus program and whether folks

[5:54:50] like the result of that or not

[5:54:54] we certainly didn't even all

[5:54:55] agree here on this dais.

[5:54:59] He sparked that effort.

[5:55:00] Councilmember Foster and I

[5:55:00] don't always agree on every

[5:55:04] land use issue but what I'm

[5:55:04] always consistently confident

[5:55:08] of is that he's continuously

[5:55:09] prioritizing the needs of

[5:55:14] district for as council Mary

[5:55:14] Lou Rivera shared and nothing

[5:55:18] seems more consistent with that

[5:55:18] than his office's continual

[5:55:19] push not just for housing for

[5:55:23] the sake of housing but for

[5:55:23] economic opportunities

[5:55:24] specifically through

[5:55:27] homeownership opportunities.

[5:55:28] >> So we've we talked a lot

[5:55:32] today about footnote seven and

[5:55:33] I think we heard it from staff

[5:55:36] with some of the questions here

[5:55:37] that even if Footnote seven was

[5:55:41] not utilized, my understanding

[5:55:42] is that the property owner

[5:55:42] would still have the right to

[5:55:43] build housing and perhaps it

[5:55:46] would be fewer units of housing

[5:55:46] And I could understand that

[5:55:51] argument if that's why

[5:55:51] the focus on footnote seven is

[5:55:52] so significant.

[5:55:52] Yet the appeal we've heard

[5:55:56] today doesn't seem to suggest

[5:55:56] that less homes would somehow

[5:56:00] solve the concerns that have

[5:56:01] been brought about.

[5:56:04] Instead what I'm hearing is

[5:56:04] that even the idea of putting

[5:56:09] housing on land that is zoned

[5:56:09] specifically for this type of

[5:56:13] very low density housing is

[5:56:14] somehow unacceptable And I

[5:56:18] totally disagree.

[5:56:19] We are in a housing crisis

[5:56:20] again.

[5:56:20] Not everyone likes to

[5:56:23] acknowledge it but there

[5:56:23] remains a particular need for

[5:56:24] homeownership opportunities

[5:56:28] across the city and especially

[5:56:29] as we continue to discuss how

[5:56:30] much new housing across

[5:56:33] the city is rental units It

[5:56:34] feels like we used to talk

[5:56:38] about the American dream.

[5:56:39] I grew up certainly with this

[5:56:40] idea that if you get a good

[5:56:40] education you can find a good

[5:56:43] job, you can save up money, buy

[5:56:44] a home, eventually start a

[5:56:44] family.

[5:56:48] And for young people today I

[5:56:49] think it truly is nothing but

[5:56:49] just a dream.

[5:56:50] It's further away than ever

[5:56:53] before not just because of

[5:56:54] the high cost of living but

[5:56:54] because of our lack of housing

[5:56:58] availability and as a result of

[5:56:59] it the affordability of it.

[5:56:59] And so today we're hearing a

[5:57:02] project that proposes

[5:57:03] the lowest possible density

[5:57:06] threshold for housing 0 to 4

[5:57:07] dwelling units an acre that

[5:57:08] will provide for sale single

[5:57:11] family homeownership

[5:57:12] opportunities and that includes

[5:57:13] deed restricted affordable

[5:57:16] housing on site And we still

[5:57:21] have that opposition which is

[5:57:21] perplexing.

[5:57:22] i understand and hear

[5:57:26] the community is argument and

[5:57:27] why many residents would argue

[5:57:31] that this would have made an

[5:57:32] excellent public park And in

[5:57:32] fact I think you're right in

[5:57:36] noting that the city must have

[5:57:37] agreed with that in the 2015

[5:57:37] community plan when it threw

[5:57:39] out the possibility of for that

[5:57:44] even this is without a doubt

[5:57:45] from everything we've heard

[5:57:45] from each of you a community

[5:57:48] that legitimately needs

[5:57:49] additional infrastructure, it

[5:57:53] needs more park space.

[5:57:54] That deficiency for parks is

[5:57:54] not unique to you.

[5:57:58] It is across the entire city

[5:57:59] And in fact in my home

[5:58:00] community here, Mesa when that

[5:58:03] plan update was passed some

[5:58:03] years ago it was perhaps

[5:58:04] the biggest issue that was

[5:58:05] brought up and that was in a

[5:58:07] community where we were

[5:58:08] proposing to add up to 24,000

[5:58:13] housing units.

[5:58:14] >> So I agree that the city has

[5:58:15] to do better to acknowledge how

[5:58:18] challenging it is to map out

[5:58:18] updates to our existing

[5:58:19] communities and community plans

[5:58:23] and how we identify

[5:58:23] opportunities for new parks

[5:58:24] especially when we are now

[5:58:27] looking at mostly infill and

[5:58:28] redevelopment opportunities in

[5:58:29] a city that is in many ways

[5:58:32] built out.

[5:58:33] So an often used argument that

[5:58:34] I think we heard once again

[5:58:37] today is that we somehow need

[5:58:38] to meet our park deficiency or

[5:58:42] infrastructure needs and until

[5:58:42] then we should not build more

[5:58:43] housing.

[5:58:46] And again I just fundamentally

[5:58:46] disagree.

[5:58:47] We must work on both housing

[5:58:51] and infrastructure and in many

[5:58:52] cases the way the city is

[5:58:53] structured with development

[5:58:57] impact fees is that we will we

[5:58:58] literally rely on housing to

[5:59:01] deliver that infrastructure.

[5:59:02] I know I'm in a community where

[5:59:05] they waited nearly 20 years to

[5:59:06] get a park project online

[5:59:07] because they were waiting for

[5:59:09] those impact fees to be

[5:59:10] collected.

[5:59:11] So we often talk about putting

[5:59:11] more housing especially

[5:59:15] affordable housing in high

[5:59:16] resource areas and a

[5:59:16] significant amount of new

[5:59:20] housing has been north of

[5:59:20] the eight in many of our

[5:59:25] districts and we do so

[5:59:25] specifically with the objective

[5:59:26] of also avoiding a history of

[5:59:30] concentrate poverty in

[5:59:30] communities of concern.

[5:59:31] And what I heard today from

[5:59:34] some members of the public

[5:59:35] seemed to suggest that today's

[5:59:35] project under consideration is

[5:59:39] once again concentrating

[5:59:40] poverty and that argument is

[5:59:41] false and we need to call that

[5:59:44] out especially when we have an

[5:59:45] item that provides something

[5:59:49] that is quite the opposite of

[5:59:49] that low density single family

[5:59:50] residential homeownership

[5:59:54] opportunities is that many we

[5:59:55] have heard from in the past

[5:59:59] have often been portrayed as

[5:59:59] only being available in higher

[6:00:00] resourced communities

[6:00:03] Communities south of the eight

[6:00:04] also deserve to have the same

[6:00:05] access to quality housing

[6:00:08] opportunities and good jobs in

[6:00:09] schools and public services and

[6:00:13] infrastructure.

[6:00:13] So given everything we've heard

[6:00:14] today, I do not believe

[6:00:18] the necessary findings have

[6:00:19] been presented to support

[6:00:19] the appeal and so I will be

[6:00:20] supporting the motion on

[6:00:20] the table.

[6:00:26] Thank you.

[6:00:26] All right.

[6:00:27] Thank you.

[6:00:27] Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee.

[6:00:28] We'll go back to Councilmember

[6:00:30] Campione Thank you, council

[6:00:31] PRESIDENT And thank you for

[6:00:32] that The time we have here a

[6:00:35] minute 45 Appreciate

[6:00:36] the comments of my colleagues

[6:00:39] and and a lot of the policy

[6:00:40] goals that they're pointing to

[6:00:41] homeownership absolutely

[6:00:44] important And there's I think

[6:00:45] that any application will show

[6:00:50] some good and some not so good.

[6:00:51] You know, I support building

[6:00:55] housing in San Diego and in my

[6:00:56] district and other districts

[6:00:59] across the city just yesterday

[6:01:00] voted to approve a plan that's

[6:01:00] going to bring thousands of

[6:01:01] homes to San Diego.

[6:01:04] But supporting housing does not

[6:01:05] require the council to approve

[6:01:09] any and every project on any

[6:01:10] and every site under any

[6:01:10] process.

[6:01:10] We have to make findings

[6:01:14] required by law.

[6:01:14] This project depends on

[6:01:15] footnote seven which is a rule

[6:01:18] that reduced the minimum lot

[6:01:22] size in this community from

[6:01:23] 20,000ft to 5000ft and

[6:01:24] the development has had its

[6:01:24] vesting rights Based on that

[6:01:27] footnote as was made absolutely

[6:01:28] clear as I've said before with

[6:01:31] the Klauber project Footnote

[6:01:32] seven I believe violated our

[6:01:33] duties under affirmatively

[6:01:36] furthering fair housing laws As

[6:01:37] someone mentioned earlier

[6:01:38] quoting me back to me it's

[6:01:41] poisonous tree which is to say

[6:01:41] i don't believe the city was in

[6:01:42] a position to grant any vesting

[6:01:46] rights to any applicant under

[6:01:46] that legal mechanism because

[6:01:47] how can a city grant property

[6:01:51] rights while similar

[6:01:52] simultaneously violating state

[6:01:52] or federal laws?

[6:01:56] I know that's a question that

[6:01:57] reasonable minds can differ on

[6:01:57] but I fall on the side of I

[6:02:00] think it violated fha if

[6:02:01] the applicant were to bring it

[6:02:02] forward under other mechanisms

[6:02:05] as staff explained I'd be

[6:02:06] interested to know if it still

[6:02:07] met all those standards under

[6:02:10] the process but ultimately I'm

[6:02:11] deeply skeptical that this

[6:02:11] process which is

[6:02:13] the utilization of footnote

[6:02:14] seven is legal which is to say

[6:02:15] I don't blame the development

[6:02:15] team for using it.

[6:02:19] I blame the city for allowing

[6:02:19] it to happen in the first

[6:02:19] place.

[6:02:23] >> I also want to be clear

[6:02:24] about the Housing

[6:02:27] Accountability Act that my five

[6:02:28] minutes plus three okay

[6:02:32] COUNCILMAN, thank you.

[6:02:33] >> I want to be clear about

[6:02:33] the Housing Accountability Act

[6:02:36] and as a person who's

[6:02:37] absolutely wide eyed about

[6:02:41] litigation risk, the act does

[6:02:42] not require the city to approve

[6:02:43] a project regardless of any

[6:02:46] potential defects and we heard

[6:02:47] today about issues of notice

[6:02:48] and secret compliance and

[6:02:51] public health and safety other

[6:02:52] findings for discretionary

[6:02:52] permits and waivers.

[6:02:56] But I would focus on the fair

[6:02:57] housing obligations.

[6:02:57] The objections from

[6:02:58] the community are not based on

[6:03:01] generalized opposition to

[6:03:02] housing or subjective

[6:03:03] neighborhood character or a

[6:03:03] desire to reduce density simply

[6:03:06] because they don't like

[6:03:07] the project they brought up

[6:03:11] consistently the legal findings

[6:03:11] that need to be required

[6:03:12] including whether that project

[6:03:15] complies with state and federal

[6:03:16] law.

[6:03:16] So I have consistency with my

[6:03:17] prior position on Footnote

[6:03:20] seven Questionable adoption I

[6:03:21] would support the granting of

[6:03:22] the appeal and reversing

[6:03:22] the Planning Commission's

[6:03:23] approval.

[6:03:28] >> Thank you.

[6:03:29] >> All right.

[6:03:29] Thank you.

[6:03:30] Council Member Camp Hill.

[6:03:30] So with that I don't see

[6:03:33] anybody else in the lights.

[6:03:34] We have a motion by council

[6:03:35] member Foster and a second by

[6:03:38] myself to move the staff

[6:03:39] recommendation which is up on

[6:03:39] the screen.

[6:03:42] Clerk Please call the roll.

[6:03:42] >> I'm sorry the voting system

[6:03:50] Please cast your vote That

[6:03:51] passes 8 to 1 with Council

[6:03:52] member Campo voting no Thank

[6:03:52] you.

[6:03:55] Council PRESIDENT Thank you.

[6:03:56] With that we are now adjourned.

[6:04:00] Council to the next regularly

[6:04:01] scheduled Council meeting on

[6:04:06] Monday JULY 13th, 2026 at 10

City Council Meetings — Tuesday Agenda Revised Added S500-S501

Transcript